T R NELSON Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order dated 08.08.2009 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District confirmed by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.10.2009 and the Reviewing Authority dated 12.04.2010 and seeks to set aside the same with a consequential direction to reinstate him in service.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 07.04.2011, this Court directed notice on admission. It is seen from the records that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.38 of 2009 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Poodhapandi Police Station. While the petitioner was working as Head Constable at Eathamozhi Police Station, he was accused of going to the house of one Anitha. He gave Rs.50/- to her husband and sent him to the TASMAC shop. On knowing that Anitha and her 12 year old daughter were alone in the house and preparing food, he entered the house and behaved in an indecent fashion and compelled her to have sex with him. WHEN Anitha started shouting, the family members of Anitha rushed to the house and the petitioner ran away from that place. The case was tried before the Judicial Magistrate, Poodhapandi in which 10 witnesses were examined. The first witness P.W.1 was none other than Anitha. The Trial Court after going into the evidence came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner was not proved and he was not guilty of offence under Section 452, 354 r/w Section 4 of Women Harassment Act.

(3.) THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil who was the Enquiry Officer, unmindful of these evidence recorded, held that the charge viz., that he went into the house of Anitha with a view to rape her was proved beyond doubt. Based upon the enquiry report, a further representation was called for from the petitioner. THE Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District accepting the enquiry report found that the second charge was proved and for the proved charge, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. As agaisnt the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority by his appeal dated 24.08.2009. THE Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by merely observing that the Disciplinary Authority held the charges were proved and the punishment do not warrant any interference. THEreafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority namely the Director General of Police by an order dated 12.04.2010 dismissed the review petition. She observed that the outcome of the criminal case will have no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings and the statement of Anitha, wife of Peter Selvaraj during the preliminary enquiry indicates that the petitioner has misbehaved with her. THErefore, in view of the proved charge, there was no case for interference.