The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strict compliance with airport security regulations and guidelines to ensure safety and security.

This Writ petition is filed by the petitioner, Deputy Superintendent of Police, challenging the G.O.(3D) No. 95, dated 18. 2005 imposing punishment of censure.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner, while he was serving as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Airport Security, was served with a charge memo containing two charges, which reads as follows:-

"(i) Reprehensible conduct in behaving high handed manner by getting the bullet proof car provided to Tr. Prakash Singh Badal, Honble Chief Minister of Punjab, who arrived at Chennai Airport on 111. 2000, towed despite protests from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security and thereby causing damages to the Superintendent of Police Car effecting serious breach of security in disabling the use of sanitized BP car to a very high risk category VIP.

(ii) Causing financial loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,02,602/- for getting the

B.P. Car, which was damaged due to his high handed act repaired."

3. The statement of allegation namely imputation of misconduct or misbehavior is as follows:-

"Tr. K. Antony Samy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, formerly Airport Security, now working as Deputy Superintendent of Police DCB Dindigul was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Domestic Terminal Airport with effect from 5. 2000. The post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Domestic Terminal is very important one, invoking security of various VIPs on their visits. On 111. 2000, Tr. Prakash Singh Badal, Honble Chief Minister of Punjab arrived at Kamarajar Domestic Terminal by IC 540. As he is one of the most highly protected VIPs in India facing threat from Muslim Fundamental Organisations, Sinkh militant organisations, he has been given Z special security rating and a convoy consisting of a pilot vehicle (Car TN 01 3904) a Bullet Proof Car (TSR 3171) two escort vehicles (TN 23 C 2546 and TN 09 H 3796) were placed in the portico at 20.25 hrs. on 111. 2000. Tr. Antony Samy had insisted on the convoy being removed from the portico. Despite protests from the Tr. Gopalakrishnan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security Branch C.I.D., that the Bullet Proof car and the other cars in the convoy have undergone thorough anti-sabotage check and hence cannot be mingled with other cars, he picked up an argument with Tr. Gopalakrishnan did not listen to reason and had not only insisted on their removal, but in a high handed manner, got the bullet proof car towed to the airport police station with the help of wrecker, thereby endangering the VIP Security. His high handed act in picking up a quarrel with a fellow officer in full public view, lowered the prestige of Tamil Nadu Police in front of other State Officials and visiting public. Because of such towing the bullet proof car No. TSR 3171 incurred damages. Thus, his act resulted in damage to the Government property besides serious breach of security in disabling the use of BP car to a very high risk category VIP. Due to his action in towing the bullet proof car to airport police station, anti-sabotage check could not be conducted once again on the Bullet Proof car and consequently the VIP had to travel in a unsafe car. His action resulted in the Bullet proof car getting damaged in the rear right window glass and the fan belt which was got repaired from ordnance Factory, Medak (A.P.) for an amount of Rs.1,02,682/- vide Invoice No.00003 dated 15. 2001. Thus, he caused financial loss to the Government to a tune of Rs.1,02,682/-. Hence, this charge against this officer Tr. K. Antony Samy, Deputy Superintendent of Police."

4. Nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the department as set out in annexure 4 and documents as set out in annexure 3 were marked. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer found that charge No.1 alone is proved and Charge No.2 relating to loss caused due to the vehicle was held not proved. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and an explanation was submitte