LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-348

M BOOPATHY Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Decided On July 13, 2009
M.BOOPATHY Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a WRIT of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for records relating to the 3rd respondent in PR No,2/2005 under rule 17(b) dated 21.9.2005 in awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement from service and the order passed in appeal by the second respondent in C.No.B2/AP 04/2006 dated 3.2.2006 in rejecting the appeal and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back to service with all attendant benefits and with due regards to her seniority. The WRIT Petition is filed praying to issue a WRIT of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for records relating to the 3rd respondent in PR No,2/2005 under rule 17(b) dated 21.9.2005 in awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement from service and the order passed in appeal by the second respondent in C.No.B2/AP 04/2006 dated 3.2.2006 in rejecting the appeal and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back to service with all attendant benefits and with due regards to her seniority.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is as follows:- THE writ petitioner joined the services of the respondent department as Junior Assistant under physically handicapped quota in November, 1981. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant in the year 1994. THEreafter, she was conferred with Selection Grade Assistant. In November 2004, petitioner was transferred and posted to L1 seat from H1 seat. From 24.11.2004, petitioner was absent. On 18.1.2005, charges were framed on four counts and they are as follows:-

(3.) HEARD Mr.T.Seenivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, who referred to the counter-affidavit and stated that the petitioner deliberately refused to receive all the proceedings mentioned above and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Certain endorsement in the file was shown to the court stating that the petitioner refused to receive the charge memo. Such endorsement is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.