Punishment imposed on the basis of dissenting view taken by disciplinary authority is not unsustainable.

(This writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.335 of 2004 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records relating to the order of dismissal from the service of the petitioner dated 6.8.2003 in P.R.S.No.13/03 on the file of the second respondent and the confirmation of the same by the rejection of an appeal dated 34.11.2003 passed in C.No.C1/AP.104/2003 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits.)

In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent dated 6.8.2003, confirmed in appeal by the first respondent by order dated 3.11.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits.

2. The petitioner was working as Woman Constable Grade-I in All Women Police Station, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. A charge memo was issued under rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P.R.No.13/2003 by the second respondent herein. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, was nominated as Enquiry Officer, who conducted oral enquiry and by his report dated 16.6.2003 held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The second respondent, who is the Disciplinary Authority, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and drawn a dissenting note on 14.7.2003, for which the petitioner submitted a reply on 25.7.2003. Not satisfied with the said reply, the second respondent on 6.8.2003 held that the charges are proved and consequently the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the same was rejected on 3.11.2003.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that since the charges are serious in nature and statements were recorded during preliminary enquiry implicating the petitioner in the charges, the second respondent differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and sent a dissenting note and after getting remarks from the petitioner, punishment was imposed. It is also stated that unlike in criminal cases, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove the charges against the delinquent in the departmental enquiry.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the second respondent ought not to have held that the charges against the petitioner are proved based on Exs.P-1 to P-7, which are statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry as the same are without any corroboration, and relying on Exs.P-13 and P-14, which are drawn based on Exs.P-1 to P-7. The learned counsel also read out the dissenting note of the second respondent wherein the differing view was taken based on the statement given in Exs.P-1 to P-7 during the preliminary enquiry. According to the second respondent, the preliminary enquiry was conducted on 14.1.2003. PW-7 gave statement in Ex.P-7 that Rs.300/- each collected from 94 recruits and an amount of Rs.28,200/- was handed over to the petitioner in the presence of others. The second respondent therefore relied on the said statement obtained during the preliminary enquiry and the said statements were not corroborated in the regular enquiry after framing of charges. In paragraph 8 of the dissenting note, the second respondent states as follows,

“In view of the foregoing conclusions I have given much weight to the statements of Pws.1 to 7, PW.10 given before the preliminary enquiry officer and the report of preliminary enquiry officer i.e. PW.11 and the exhibits filed by them and Ex.P1 to P7, Ex.P13 and P14 and the charge against the delinquent is “PROVED” under preponderance of probability as per the various rul