- (1.) M. A. Waheed Khan, the respondent in the appeal herein, was serving as Inspector of Police in the State of Tamil Nadu. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the following charges: "(I) Highly reprehensible conduct in flouting the provisions of Section 160 (8 (sic) Criminal Procedure Code and Standing Instructions of the Director General of Police in having allowed one Rani, wife of Ramalingam and Kasi Ammal of Elanangur Village to remain at the police station and asked them to have their bed within Chidambaram Town Police Station premises on the night of 25/3/1983. (Ii) Gross misconduct and outrageous behaviour with a woman by name Rani 19, wife of Ramalingam of Elanangur Village on the night of 25/3/1983 at Chidambaram Town Police Station and outside the police station. "
(2.) During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he was tried by the criminal court for the offences under S. 166, 354, 365 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result of the disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed from service. In the criminal proceedings, the trial court convicted him under S. 166 and 354 Indian Penal Code He was, however, acquitted by the appellate court.
(3.) The respondent challenged the order of dismissal before the Tamil nadu Administrative tribunal. By its order dated 10/1/1995, the tribunal set aside the order of dismissal on two grounds. The tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court on similar facts. The tribunal also held that there was no evidence before the Enquiry officer to prove the charges against the respondent. The tribunal reached the said findings on the following reasoning: "It is seen from the orders in PR 22/83 dated 6/2/1984 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the orders of the Inspector General of 725 Police in 86966/ap2/84 dated 16/10/1984 that the ladies allegedly detained in the police station had turned hostile and the finding is based on the statement during the preliminary enquiry which they had contradicted at the enquiry. The findings in the disciplinary enquiry have to be based on the evidence recorded at the enquiry and not the statements recorded during any previous investigation or preliminary enquiry. If the witnesses contradict themselves, the previous statements can be used to discredit them, but such previous statements by themselves cannot become the evidence if they are not consistent with the evidence at enquiry of the witnesses. ";