The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by an authority not competent to frame charges is without jurisdiction and renders the entire process illegal.

1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 4th respondent in V-11014/22/98/L&R/Pers.-1-4430 dated 27.11.1998 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent in V-11014/78/92-A6(SZ)/12277 dated 30.10.1992 and the orders of the first respondent in V-15014 / (1) / Maj.4 / KCG / SSP / GHM/92/AD.VI/10484 dated 2.9.1992 and quash the same.

2. The petitioner joined as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force on 10.3.82. While the petitioner was stationed at Salem Steel Plant, on the basis of a complaint given by one, Parvathi, the Inspector of Police, Central Industrial Security Force inspected and reported that complaint is false. However, as against the petitioner, based upon the said complaint, the following three charges were framed :-

"i) Gross misconduct and indiscipline in that No.822040021 Constable K.C.Gandhi of CISF Unit, SSP Salem has knocked the door of Constable S.Palani (Quarter No.A-21/14 at Mohan Nagar, Salem), on 8.10.1991 around 21.45 hrs., with mala fide intention when his wife Mrs.Parvathi Palani was alone (at her home saying that some of her relatives had come from Rasipuram). He tried to enter inside the Quarter (No.A-21/14) forcibly by pushing the door from outside when Mrs.Parvathi Palani opened the door slightly

ii) in that he has appeared in drunken stage on 08.10.91 at about 21.45 hrs., (at Quarters No.A-21/14, Mohan Nagar Township SSP Salem) and threatened Mrs.Parvathi Palani to slap and break her teeth which amounts a gross misconduct and misbehaviour on his part ;

iii) No.822040021 Constable K.C.Gandhi of CISF Unit SSP Salem failed to vacate the Quarter No/C-21/16 vide this office letter No.V-15014/68/92/SSP/298 dated 21.10.1992. He has disobeyed the orders of the Asst. Commandant by refusing to vacate the said quarter."

3. The petitioner denied all the imputations and submitted a detailed explanation. The said charges were framed by the Deputy Commandant, who called upon the petitioner to state his objections and required the petitioner to put forth his objection and take part in the enquiry. The first respondent appointed the same Deputy Commandant, who framed the charges as enquiry officer. The petitioner raised objections. However, the respondents insisted that the petitioner has to face the proceedings. The Inspector, who investigated the complaint also was examined as a witness and his statement that there was no evidence to establish the charge has also been recorded. It is also the case of the Inspector that the petitioner was not drunk at the material point of time. The said Deputy Commandant, who framed the charges initially and who came to be appointed as enquiry officer, submitted a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his objections. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority, the first respondent, imposed the punishment of removal from service.

4. The petitioner preferred a writ petition, which was dismissed as premature, preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner preferred a revision before the 3rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent had failed to dispose of the revision. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P. No.12431/98 to quash the order of dismissal. This Court directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the revision petition/representation. The 4th respondent rejected the revision petition by order dated 27.11.98 and confirmed the order of dismissal. Challenging the said proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. It is contended by Mr.Duraisami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the proceedings are nonest, in that the competent disciplinary authority in terms of the statutory rule has not framed the charges, but charge has been framed by the subordinate authority, who is not competent to frame the charges and this vitiate