IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 4.2.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.37422 of 2006(T) (O.A.No.9439/98) N. GANESAN .. PETITIONER Vs 1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KARUR, KARUR DISTRICT. 2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ARMED RESERVE, KARUR, KARUR DISTRICT. .. RESPONDENTS Prayer: Original Application No.9439 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records of the first respondent in C.No.F1/PR6/98 dated 10.9.98 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For petitioner : Mr. V. Ravi Kumar For respondents : Mr. B. Vijay, Government Advocate. O R D E R Original Application No.9439 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records of the first respondent in C.No.F1/PR6/98 dated 10.9.98 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. 2. The Original Application has been filed against the order of compulsory retirement passed by the first respondent Superintendent of Police, Karur. An appeal lies to the Inspector https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ General of Police under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The petitioner has sought waiver and filed the Original Application in the year 1998. 3. The petitioner in this case was issued a charge memo for certain delinquency. An enquiry officer, the second respondent was appointed and in the enquiry the charges were held to be proved. The first respondent Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer and imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The impugned order dated 10.9.1998 reads as follows:- "F.ORDER: I have carefully gone through the minute, P.R. File, and other connected records. He was dealt with for "Neglect of duty in not reporting for duty at 20-00 hrs. On 13.12.97 during Roll Call, absented himself from duty continuously and thereby committed desertion". The delinquent has not produced any witness and document in his favour. In his explanation presented before the Enquiry Officer, the delinquent has accepted his delinquency. The Enquiry Officer has held the charge proved on basing the evidence of prosecution witnesses and prosecution exhibits. Even though, the delinquent has acknowledged the receipt of copy of minute on 2.5.98 and reminder memo on 30.8.98, he has failed to submit his further written representation so far. Hence, it is construed that he has nothing to offer and accepts the delinquency. I concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and award the delinquent the punishment of Compulsory retirement from service." 4. On 2.12.1998 the above impugned order was stayed by the Tribunal and the same was extended until further orders. Hence, the petitioner continues in service. The statutory provision provides remedy by way of appeal. Since the petitioner still continues in service and since the full-fledged enquiry was conducted and a report has been filed based on which the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment after taking into consideration the explanation given by the petitioner, the matter is to be heard by the Appellate Authority on merits and the petitioner is inclined to pursue the appeal remedy if permitted. 5. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, normally does not go into the factual aspects of the case to decide the delinquency. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to file appeal to the Inspector General of Police or any other competent authority as provided under the rules and the appellate authority as and when such appeal is filed shall hear and dispose off the same. Since the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing the Original Application and the same has been renumbered as Writ Petition in this Court and there is an interim order of stay, the petitioner is granted one month time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file the appeal, if he so desires, and the appellate authority shall hear and dispose off the same on merits and in accordance with law within two months thereafter without raising the bar of limitation. Since the petitioner continues in service pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, he shall not be disturbed pending disposal of the appeal. If the petitioner does not file the appeal within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the interim order stands vacated automatically. The Writ Petition is disposed off as above. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KARUR, KARUR DISTRICT. 2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ARMED RESERVE, KARUR KARUR DISTRICT. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.7389/10 1 cc To Mr.V. Ravi Kumar, Advocate, SR.6735/10 W.P.No.37422 of 2006 sv(co) pmk.15.2.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/