The court emphasized the importance of a fair and thorough disciplinary process, highlighting the need for charges to be proved in a proper oral enquiry before imposing disciplinary action.

(The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.)

The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in RC.No.253520/PR.II(1)/2003, dated, 03.02.2004 and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:-

The petitioner was appointed as 1st Grade Police Constable in Kanyakumari District on 01.02.1972. He had joined in duty after completing his training in the police recruitment school at Coimbatore and served in various police stations in Kanyakumari District. On 31.05.1985, he was promoted as a Head Constable. Later, on 01.06.1998, he was promoted as a Special Sub-Inspector of Police. On 13.01.2003, the petitioner along with a first Grade Women Constable T.Pitchi, reported before Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, in connection with the medical examination of women candidates selected for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. All the candidates had brought for medical examination before the Dean of Medical College Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil and completed his duty. While he was taking the candidates for eye check up on 14.01.2003 to the T.B.Hospital, Asaripallam, he was served with a suspension order passed by the third respondent for a charge under Rule (3b) of Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service (D&A) Rules 1955 in P.R.No.12/2003 for alleged corrupt practice of collecting an amount of Rs.28,200/- from 94 candidates for the post selected for Grade-II Police Constable while subjecting them medical examination by engaging one Ravi Stephen. I was asked to attend the enquiry based on the charge memo dated, 19.02.2003. The third respondent had appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Kanyakumari District as an Enquiry Officer and files his report stating that the charges alleged against the petitioner were not proved. The petitioner had further submitted that the order of suspension based against the petitioner was revoked by the third respondent and he was asked to join duty vide D.O.No.421/2003, dated, 02.07.2003. Accordingly, the petitioner had joined duty on 03.07.2003. However, the third respondent had sent a dissenting note on 14.07.2003 for which the petitioner had given a reply on 25.07.2003. On 06.08.2003, the third respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed an order dismissing the petitioner from his service. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent in C.No.C1/AP103/2003, dated, 13.08.2003. The second respondent had rejected the petitioner appeal on 03.11.2003. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a review petition before the first respondent in R.C.No.253520/PR.II(1)2003, dated, 22.11.2003. The review petition had also been rejected. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the first respondent dated, 03.02.2004, on various grounds.

It is submitted that on behalf of the petitioner that even though the Enquiry Officer had found the charges framed against the petitioner has not proved, the Disciplinary Authority, the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, the third respondent herein had awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. The punishment of dismissal from service by his order, dated, 06.08.2003. Based on his dissenting note, dated, 14.07.2003, stating as follows:-

"8. 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 an Ex.P1 to P7, Ex.P13 and P14 and the charge against the delinquent is "PROVED" under preponderance of p