JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in PR.No.7/2003 dated 14.6.2004 and RC.No.B2/17265/2004 dated 5.3.2005 respectively and quash the same and grant such other further relief as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.)

1. The petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion-II, Avadi on 20.05.1977. He was promoted thereafter as Sub-Inspector of Police, and further, as Inspector of Police in 2002. His name was included in the panel for promotion for the year 2002 and the petitioner was promoted as Inspector on 04.12.2002 and joined duty in the Tamil Nadu Special Police X-Battalion, Ulundurpet, Villupuram District.

2. While serving as an Inspector of Police, in January 2003, the petitioner was heading a Battalion comprising Women Police Constables, when certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner, both anonymously and otherwise. An enquiry came to be initiated and conducted, based upon which charges were framed under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (in short 'Rules'). The charges framed read as follows:

“TAMIL”

3. The charges are serious and detailed and in summary, allege that the petitioner was found to be in a drunken state and had abused as well as used obscene words against the women constables. It was also alleged that the petitioner had intruded into their quarters without prior intimation, and with a view to interfering in their privacy.

4. Furthermore, the petitioner was stated to have utilized the services of a constable by name R. Indira, permitting her to visit his residence in the guise of taking tuition for the petitioner's daughter on 16.01.2003, 17.01.2003 and 18.01.2003. In all, the conduct of the petitioner, upon preliminary enquiry by the Deputy Commandant, was found reprehensible and unbecoming of a person in public service.

5. The petitioner denied the charges in toto and moved an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) challenging the appointment of the enquiry officer who had been appointed to investigate the charges. The Tribunal accepted the grievances expressed by him, setting aside the offending appointment of the enquiry officer and directed that an alternate officer be appointed in his place to conduct the enquiry in accordance with law.

6. Consequent upon orders of the Tribunal as above, the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police III-Battalion, Veerapuram was appointed as an enquiry officer. The enquiry was completed on 24.03.2004, adverse to the petitioner. The objections raised by the petitioner came to be rejected. The petitioner was furnished a copy of the enquiry report and made a detailed representation attempting to meet the report of the enquiry officer and raising various objections thereto before the Disciplinary Authority. The original authority came to pass an order of punishment dated 14.06.2004, confirming all the charges as proved and imposing a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect.

7. The order of punishment was carried in first appeal before the Inspector General of Police, who confirmed the same by order dated 05.03.2005. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the appeal filed by him has not been considered in proper perspective and the various grounds raised have not even been adverted to, let alone dealt with in a proper manner. The petitioner would state that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the specific mandate of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (Rules) insofar as, it is non-speaking and does not advert to or answer any of the grounds raised by the petitioner.

8. Learned Governm