The main legal point established is that the punishment of dismissal from service, based on a criminal conviction, cannot be unilaterally modified without an independent inquiry following the prescribed procedures, especially when the accused is honourably acquitted.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent herein passed in his Rc. No.108753/ AP.I (2)/2014 dated 05.01.2017 imposing a modified punishment of compulsory retirement from service and the consequential order of the third respondent herein passed in his C.No.J1/PR.10/2011, D.O.No.49/2017 dated 01.02.2017 and the further consequential order passed by the second respondent herein in his C.No.B2/ 8475/2012, R.O.No.63/2017 dated 22.05.2017 settling the period of suspension as eligible leave including EOL and the consequential order passed by the third respondent herein in his C.No.J1/P.R.10/2012, D.O.372/2017 dated 01.06.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.06.2014 by treating the period of suspension from 24.07.2011 to 17.04.2014 as duty for all purposes with all consequential retirement monetary benefits.)

1. The order impugned modifying the punishment of dismissal from service as that of compulsory retirement is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and retired from service. The petitioner was placed under suspension, while he was in service on 23.07.2011, on the ground that he had involved in a Criminal Case in Crime No.588 of 2010.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the criminal charges against the writ petitioner was based on the complaint given by his own son, stating that his signature was forged by the petitioner, who is none other than the father of the defacto complainant. The charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.123 of 2011 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kanchipuram on 10.06.2011 and the petitioner was convicted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kanchipuram by judgment dated 17.03.2014 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.15,000/- was imposed.

4. Pursuant to the order of conviction, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range had issued a show cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be imposed a punishment of dismissal from service based on the conviction in show cause notice dated 01.04.2014. Consequently, the punishment of the dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner in proceedings dated 17.04.2014.

5. The petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2014 and the Learned Sessions Judge, Kanchipuram had acquitted the petitioner honourably in vide judgment dated 31.08.2015. Based on the order of acquittal, the petitioner preferred an Appeal Petition to the Director General of Police and made a request to allow him to retire from service with effect from 30.06.2014, the date of superannuation. The Appeal Petition filed by the petitioner in this regard on 23.09.2015 was disposed of by the Director General of Police in proceedings dated 05.01.2017, modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement.

6. Subsequently, the period of suspension was regularised as EOL based on the Fundamental Rules. The Superintendent of Police, kanchipuram has issued a consequential order, treating the period of suspension as Eligible Leave including EOL in proceedings dated 01.06.2017.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed against the writ petitioner under Rule 3 (c)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Since the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed based on the order of conviction by the Competent Criminal Court of Law, the said punishment cannot be modified by the competent authority in an Appeal Petition filed by the writ petitioner to set aside the punishment of dismissal from service.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader