The reliance on statements from preliminary enquiry, without corroboration through cross-examination, and the violation of principles of natural justice led to the setting aside of the dismissal order.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of punishment dated 30.4.1999 passed by the respondent and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(a) Petitioner was initially appointed as Grade-II Police Constable in the year 1969 and posted at Cuddalore. During the year 1994 he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable and posted at Jeyamkondan and in January, 1998, he was further promoted as Head Constable and posted at Maruvathur and he was working as such till 14. 1998.

(b) On 14. 1998, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, on the allegation that he had received illegal gratification of Rs.2,200/- from one Periyasamy, I.D. arrack seller, on 29. 1998 at 13.00 hours, for not taking legal action against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

(c) The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 30.4.1999. The petitioner was served with the report of the Enquiry Officer, along with a show cause notice on 5. 1999, requiring him to submit his further remarks. On 15. 1999 petitioner submitted his remarks before the respondent and on 16. 1999, petitioner was served with the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service.

(d) The said order of punishment was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that though the said order was served on him on 16. 1999, it had been approved and signed by the respondent on 30.4.1999 itself, the date on which the enquiry report was signed and submitted by the Enquiry Officer and this shows the pre-determination of the issue on the part of the respondent; that the respondent has not considered the explanation and further remarks of the petitioner before passing the order of punishment; that when the complainant and other witnesses turned hostile during oral enquiry, reliance placed by the respondent on the statements recorded in the preliminary enquiry is unsustainable and contrary to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court; and that the approval of the punishment even before getting the remarks of the petitioner for the Enquiry Officers report, establishes the pre-determined mind on the part of the respondent.

3. The respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the complainant Periasamy appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perambalur on 14. 1998 and gave a statement against the petitioner about the alleged bribery of Rs.2,200/- in the presence of witnesses. On ascertaining the truth of the statement, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perambalur, issued a charge memo against the petitioner on 14. 1998 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in P.R.25/98. During the course of oral enquiry, the witnesses have turned hostile and that was because all the witnesses are connected with the day to day administration of the petitioner in Maruvathur Police Station. Hence, relying on their statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry, the order of punishment was issued on the petitioner. With regard to the difference in the time of occurrence in the charge memo and in the statement of witnesses, it is stated that the time quoted is not accurate time and only approximate time. The word about has been used both in the charge memo as well as in the statement of the witnesses. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the witnesses have on their own appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police at his camp office and gave statement voluntarily and no force was used on them to obtain their preliminary statements. It is also stated that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal to the higher authorities and directly approached the Tribunal and hence the writ petition is not maintainable.

4. The learned counsel a