Disciplinary proceedings require clear evidence of misconduct, and courts will not interfere unless strict procedural contraventions are present.

ORDER :

T. Vinod Kumar, J.

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents, and perused the records.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he joined service as a Grade-II Police Constable through a selection conducted by the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and was appointed on 01.03.1998; that the petitioner was deputed to serve in the Organised Crime Investigation Unit (OCIU), Thanjavur, from 11.03.2013 to 30.06.2016; that during his service in the OCIU, he was awarded a punishment vide order dated 15.12.2017, imposing postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect; that the aforesaid punishment order was confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 09.01.2019; and that mercy petition preferred to the third respondent, was also not considered favourably and rejected by the third respondent vide order dated 22.06.2019.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, while working in the OCIU, Thanjavur District, he was issued a Show Cause Notice under Rule 3 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (for short, ‘Rules’) by the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, alleging the following lapses:

“high irreprehensible conduct in gross negligence and dereliction of duty in having deposed evidence before the Court at Mayiladuthurai on 19.07.2016 in contradiction to his earlier statement recorded by the Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai with an intention to help the main accused A1 to escape from the case”.

4. The petitioner contended that he had submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges and requested that he be exonerated, contending that the earlier statement allegedly recorded was neither shown to him nor was he informed of its contents. However, the first respondent, without properly considering the explanation, held the charges against the petitioner as proved and imposed the punishment.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that at the time of the occurrence of the incident, he was returning after attending to his duty of covering the meeting conducted by VCK party as instructed by his superior officers; that the petitioner visited the scene of crime only in the public interest; that on his arrival at the scene of offence the public informed him that a police personnel had been assaulted; that found two persons escaping from the scene of occurrence after attacking Police Constable Moorthy of Mayiladuthruai Police Station; that while the Sub-Inspector of Police, who came to the scene of offence, instructed him to take the injured to the hospital, the Sub-Inspector rushed to catch the accused persons; and accordingly, he took the injured constable to the Government Hospital for treatment.

6. The petitioner contended that taking the injured to the hospital, the injured informed him that one Gokulnath had come with an aruval and attacked him on the shoulder; that after admitting the injured in the hospital, he had left the hospital to attend to other official duties; that the Inspector of Police enquired with the petitioner and recorded a statement under Section 161 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after few days; that during the enquiry, he had informed the Inspector of Police that the injured Constable Moorthy had stated that he was assaulted by Gokulnath; and that the Inspector of Police neither showed the statement he had recorded nor read it over to him, therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the contents of the statement recorded.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that only after giving evidence before the Court of law, he came