1. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the respondent, dismissing the petitioner from service without issuing notice, charge memo and without enquiry. Such an order has been passed within 6 days from the date of registration of FIR in Crime No. 32 of 2017 on the file of Mudaliarpet police station, Puducherry under sections 7 and 8 of the Puducherry Gaming Act and sections 420 r/w 34 IPC.

2. By consent, the main writ petition itself was taken up for hearing.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was employed as Police Constable in Puducherry in 1998. Earlier, he was in the Puducherry home guards department. The petitioner has been part of the Special Task Force, Crime Team (South) and has solved many cases involving murder, theft, lottery case. The petitioner has received several accolades including Rajiv Gandhi Award on 16.08.2016. According to the petitioner, he had earned several enemies in the department as during the course of his investigation in many cases, it came to light that several police officers are involved in the crime. While so, when he was under medical leave from February 2017 onwards, news articles were published on 31.03.2017 alleging the involvement of the petitioner with an incident which resulted in registration of the FIR in Crime No. 32/2017, on the file of Mudaliarpet Police Station, Puducherry. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed dismissing him from service on 06.04.2017 without any opportunity to him. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the dismissal order contending inter-alia that the impugned order has been passed in gross-violation of principles of natural justice; that he is not connected with the offences as alleged in the FIR, he has been falsely implicated at the instance of few police officers including the Sub Inspector - Ramesh, who was part of the raiding team and the FIR on the face of it, is unsustainable as against the petitioner; and that the procedures and protection under Puducherry Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, have been violated.

Contentions of both the Counsels:

4. Mr. S. Haja Nazirudeen, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned proceedings has been passed without any notice, without issuing any charge memo with imputations of charge and without any enquiry and hence, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the procedure to be followed, while initiating the disciplinary proceedings against a police officer in the cadre of the petitioner, has been spelt out in the provisions of the Puducherry Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which were notified by the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Puducherry and the provisions make it mandatory to conduct the inquiry.

5. Further, the learned Senior Counsel relying upon Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, contended that a person cannot be dismissed ordinarily without inquiry and without being afforded an opportunity. The proviso to Article 311(2) cannot be used arbitrarily and whimsically to avenge an employee, who has had an outstanding career. To invoke the proviso to Article 311(2), there must be subjective satisfaction that enquiry cannot be practically held, based on tangible materials to dispense with the enquiry and such reasons must be recorded, which is absent in the present case. The Learned Senior counsel also referring to the allegations averred in the affidavit and the statements of the accused in a theft case investigated by the petitioner, pointed out the involvement of police officers in various crimes including the Sub-Inspector - P. Ramesh, who was also part of the present raiding team and it was strongly contended that the name of the petitioner has been included only with mala-fide intention t