V.PARTHIBAN
P. Ganesh @ Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, State of Tamilnadu, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner was working as a Police Constable Grade-II in the Police Department. He was placed under suspension, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, pending enquiry into charges to be framed against him. Thereafter, a charge-memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 13.08.2013, charging the petitioner along with another Police Constable Grade-I, that during the duty hours, he entered the TASMAC outlet at about 10.30 p.m., on 24.06.2013 and attempted to consume alcohol from the TASMAC outlet, which was in fact closed after working hours.
2. Thereafter, an enquiry was held and the charges were found established. An enquiry report was also submitted on 10.03.2014. After obtaining explanation from the petitioner, final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the penalty of ‘compulsory retirement’, on 12.12.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed mercy petition-cum-Review Petition on 23.04.2015. The same was rejected by the Director General of Police, on 09.06.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner appealed to the Government, vide his representation dated 09.06.2016, followed by reminders. Howev
Director General of Police and Others v. G. Dasayan (1998) 2 SCC 407
M.Raghavelu v. Govt. of A.P. and Another reported in (1997) 10 SCC 779
Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj V. Bank of India and others reported in (2019) 4 MLJ 637 (SC)
R.Haribabu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and two others (2013) 3 SCC 73
Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others ((2013) 3 SCC 73
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.