The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining administrative discipline and adherence to the rules in exercising powers, as well as the improper exercise of powers by the authorities in entertaining mercy petitions, which was in violation of the rules.

ORDER :

The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Woman Police Constable on 14.04.1981. She was upgraded as Grade-I Police Constable and further promoted as Head Constable in June 1996 and as Sub-Inspector of Police on 19.01.2004. A charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner on 07.03.2012 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 in PR No.40 of 2012. The charge against the writ petitioner was that while she was working as Station In-charge at Kallikudi Police Station, she was instructed to hand over the gold jewelleries to the Magistrate Court in Crime No.163 of 2011 registered under Sections 147, 148, 353, 307 IPC read with Section 25 Clause 1 of the Arms Act. The petitioner received the gold jewelleries with the approval under Form 91 from the Inspector of Police. She had not made entries in the Case Property Registers, General Notes and Para Book and committed an act of delay in handing over the jewelleries before the Magistrate Court, which resulted in missing of 107.094 grams of gold jewelleries.

3. With reference to the charges, the petitioner submitted her explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn conducted an enquiry by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved and the writ petitioner was held solely responsible for the case properties, gold jewelleries, which were entrusted to her.

4. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after providing an opportunity to the charged official to submit her further objections passed final orders imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement in order dated 05.04.2013. The petitioner preferred a Statutory Appeal to the Director General of Police, Chennai-4. But the said appeal was decided by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai-4 and the appeal was rejected in proceedings dated 10.08.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a mercy petition/review petition to the Director General of Police on 19.11.2014 through proper channel and the said mercy petition was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai. However, the third respondent-Director General of Police rejected the mercy petition submitted by the writ petitioner on the ground that the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) who had decided the appeal filed by the petitioner became the Director General of Police on promotion and therefore, he cannot decide the issues. The order of rejection dated 20.12.2016 was passed by the Director General of Police, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WP No.36644 of 2016 dated 20.10.2016. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the allegations are baseless and the petitioner, who was In-charge of the Station, handed over the gold jewelleries to the Writer, who in turn kept the properties in the locker available in the Police Station. That apart, the right of the petitioner under the Rules for adjudication of issues on merits before the Revisional Authority was also denied. The third respondent, who is also an Authority empowered to review the order, rejected the mercy petition/review petition filed by the petitioner merely on the ground that the appeal was decided by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order).

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement by the first respondent is a non-spea