O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order, dated 05.08.2015 passed by the 1st Respondent in RC.No.186721/AP2(3)/2014 on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and without jurisdiction and also sought for a consequential direction to the Respondents to pay all service and monetary benefits to the Petitioner payable to the account of the deceased husband of the petitioner, namely, K.Viswanathan (SSI- 1230).

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner's husband namely, Viswanathan (SSI- 1230) was initially appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 25.10.1984 and subsequently promoted as Special Sub Inspector of Police and had served nearly 30 years. On 07.08.2019, at Nathampatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District, the petitioner's husband was wrongly implicated in a criminal case in Crime No.116 of 2012, for the offences under Sections 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Act, read with Sections 109, 353, 307 and 379 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of TNPPDL Act, on the ground that the petitioner's husband was allegedly involved in the illegal sand quarrying. Hence the petitioner's husband was suspended from his service on 07.08.2012, subsequently, his suspension was revoked on 05.05.2013. In the meanwhile, a charge memo was issued under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, and three charges were framed and in the departmental enquiry the charges were held to be proved and punishment of ''Stoppage of increment of three years” was imposed vide order, dated 04.02.2014. The petitioner's husband has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 13.04.2014. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent has issued a show cause notice, dated 30.06.2014 for Suo moto review of the punishment. The petitioner's husband had submitted a detailed reply and after considering the reply, the 2nd respondent vide, order, dated 01.08.2014 dismissed the petitioner's husband from service.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has not followed the procedures as contemplated under the Service Rules. The petitioner’s husband had preferred a statutory appeal before the 1st respondent against the original order of punishment dated 04.02.2014 through proper channel, but the same was not forwarded by the concerned authority. But without adverting to this fact, the suo moto review was ordered. Infact the 2nd respondent had passed an order in the Suo Moto review only on the ground that the delinquent had not filed any statutory appeal against the original order of punishment. Now the petitioner had also filed an appeal against the review order dated 01.08.2014.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's husband had filed a Direction Petition before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16774 of 2014 for filing of final report in the criminal case. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. The petitioner's husband has submitted an Appeal Memorandum before the 1st Respondent on 27.08.2014. Pending appeal, the petitioner's husband died on 22.06.2015. The petitioner's husband had consumed poison on account of mental depression suffered by him at the relevant period of time. Now, the petitioner is living with her two children. The petitioner's husband’s death was immediately informed to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has recorded the death of the petitioner's husband and has passed an order of dismissal, dated 05.08.2015, thereby, confirmed the order of the dismissal by Suo Moto. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition is filed by the wife of the deceased.

5. The claim of the petitioner is that there is no evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer to show that the petitioner's husband was illegally quarrying sand without any permission and without obtaining any report from the Director of Mines and Minerals. Even the allegation in the show cause notice is that the pet