ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Special leave granted.

3. The respondents in these appeals were employed as Police Constables in the Police Force of the State of Tamil Nadu and were attached to Madras Harbour. On 9-11-1987 they were assigned duty at Ore Berth inside the Harbour. On the basis of a complaint made by one Tome-de-Jesus, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them on the basis of a charge-sheet containing the following two charges :

(i) Highly reprehensible conduct in extorting a sum of Rs. 300 from Thiru Tome-de-Jesus, Utility Steward of TSS Nancowry ship on 9-11-1987 at about 11 p.m. inside Harbour.

(ii) High-handed behaviour in picking up quarrel with Thiru K. Ramdoss, Customs Officer, on the same date and time, and abusing him with filthy words near 2-A Gate, Customs Checkpost.

4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into the charges. After recording evidence the Enquiry Officer found that Charge 1 was established but Charge 2 was not proved against the respondents. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 7-8-1989 for removal of the respondents from service. The said order was set aside by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by judgment dated 13-12-1989 on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the respondents before the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment. Thereafter the matter was again considered by the Disciplinary Authority after furnishing the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the respondents and, by order dated 16-11-1990, the Disciplinary Authority gave the benefit of doubt to both the respondents and dropped the proceedings against them. The Commissioner of Police, in exercise of his power under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955, issued a show-cause notice dated 20-11-1990 wherein he required the respondents to show cause why the punishment of removal from service should not be awarded to them. In the said show-cause notice the Commissioner of Police stated that he did not accept the order of the Disciplinary Authority and he was in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in holding that the first count of the charge is proved. Both the respondents submitted their representations in reply to the said show-cause notice. After considering the same the Commissioner of Police passed the orders dated 12-1-1991 whereby the respondents were removed from service. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders of the Commissioner of Police, the respondents moved the Tribunal by filing OAs Nos. 722 and 843 of 1991 which have been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 13-8-1992.

5. The Tribunal has set aside the order of removal passed by the Commissioner of Police on the following grounds :

(1) The charge memo was given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police who was not the appointing authority of the respondent.

(2) The show-cause notice should have been singed only by the competent authority and that it was signed by the Office Superintendent.

(3) No opportunity was given to the respondents to make representation before the Commissioner of Police before he arrived at the decision.

(4) The Commissioner of Police has erred in arriving at a conclusion about removal of the respondents from service on the basis of unreliable report of the Enquiry Officer and that evidence which was factually inconsistent and unreliable could not be the basis for arriving at a decision of removing from service.

6. We have heard Shri A. Mariaputham, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Gaurav Banerjee, the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. As regards the first ground given by the Tribunal, we find that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court in Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappan [(1996) 2 SCC 145 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 433 : (1996) 32 ATC 663