INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHENNAI Vs. K NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners/Administration have preferred the present Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records of the Second Respondent/Administrative Tribunal pertaining to the orders dated 16.9.2002 in T.A.No.204 of 1991 (W.P.No.3585 of 1983) and to quash the same.

(2.) THE Second Respondent, while passing the orders in T.A.No. 204 of 1991 (W.P.No.3585 of 1983) on 16.09.2002, has, inter alia, observed that 'the evidence against the Applicant (First Respondent) was only to the effect that there has been some delay in writing up the case diary in respect of Cr.No.229 of 1980 and that he has sent petitions directly to the higher officials instead of sending them through proper channels and for this proved charge, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed and neither the Superintendent of Police nor the Appellate or Revision Authorities had considered the evidence in the proper perspective and they have not at all dealt with the points raised by the Applicant. THE Enquiry Officer is also wrong in not examining the Deputy Superintendent of Police cited by the Applicant which would have revealed many facts relevant to the issues involved'. THErefore, the tribunal held that 'gross injustice has been done to the Applicant and in the absence of any other allegation or in the absence of any bad past history, the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the Applicant is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate' and therefore, set aside the order of compulsory retirement and resultantly, directed the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant by withholding half of back wages due to the Applicant who is stated to be 50 years old when he filed the application in 1983. THE Tribunal further held that the applicant ought to have retired on attaining the age of Superannuation in 1991 and he shall be demand to have retired from the date on which he attained the age of Superannuation and further held that the Applicant is entitled to revision of his pay and is entitled to get half of the back wages from the date on which he was compulsorily retired from his normal date of retirement and further, held that the Applicant is also entitled to have revision of his pay and accordingly, directed the proposals to be sent to the Accountant General for revision of his pension also. THE Tribunal further held that the First Respondent / Applicant is entitled to the difference thus arrived and accordingly, he is entitled for the terminal benefits and the amount paid to him shall be adjusted to and arrears shall be paid to him and ordered the original application accordingly.

(3.) IT is the contention of the Learned Special Government Pleader that the Second Respondent / Tribunal has not adhered to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.21896 of 2000 in W.M.P.No.31728 of 2000, wherein it was held that discipline was to be maintained by the Government Servant and the impugned orders of the Tribunal at any rate should not be a contributory factor in undermining discipline.