- (1.)In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent dated 6.8.2003, confirmed in appeal by the first respondent by order dated 3.11.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the p etitioner in service with all benefits.
(2.)The petitioner was working as Woman Constable Grade-I in All Women Police Station, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. A charge memo was issued under rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P.R.N o.13/2003 by the second respondent herein. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, was nominated as Enquiry Officer, who conducted oral enquiry and by his report dated 16.6.2003 held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not pr oved. The second respondent, who is the Disciplinary Authority, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and drawn a dissenting note on 14.7.2003, for which the petitioner submitted a reply on 25.7.2003. Not satisfied with the said reply, the second respondent on 6.8.2003 held that the charges are proved and consequently the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the same was rejected on 3.11.2003.
(3.)In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that since the charges are serious in nature and statements were recorded during preliminary enquiry implicating the petitioner in the charges, the second respondent differed with the fi ndings of the Enquiry Officer and sent a dissenting note and after getting remarks from the petitioner, punishment was imposed. It is also stated that unlike in criminal cases, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove the charges against the del inquent in the departmental enquiry.