Station Tenkasi Name N. Rajendran Date 10.07.1999 Sd dt.10.07.1999 Civil Surgeon I am number willing to undergo blood and urine test.
After examining the witnesses on either side and after giving an opportunity of hearing, the Enquiry Officer found all the three charges proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Superintendent of Police, Tiruneveli after carefully perusing the enquiry report dismissed the respondent from service on 4.1.2000.
The Enquiry Officer clearly companycluded that the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.
While the A. was pending before the Tribunal, the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi rendered the judgment in S.T.C No.613 of 2000 on 20.11.2000 acquitting the respondent of all the charges.
Respondent then filed an application in O.A. No.
Both husband and wife got panic and companyplained to a police man, namely, Head Constable Adiyodi No.1368 who was standing along with Head Constable Peter No.1079 of Tenkasi Police Station on the opposite side of the bus stand.
4 of 1998 was promulgated by the Governor and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary, dated the 30th July, 1998.
At about 11.00 PM he visited the Tenkasi bus stand in a drunken state and misbehaved and eve teased a married lady, who was waiting along with her husband, to board a bus.
It was further ordered that the respondent be reinstated with companytinuity of service forthwith, with back wages from the date of acquittal in the criminal case, till payment.
The Medical Officer of the Government Hospital had also certified that the delinquent had companysumed liquor and he was number companyperating for urine and blood tests.
1144 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
The respondent then filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, which was rejected vide his proceeding dated 10.3.2000.
The respondent herein, while he was on duty at the Armed Reserve, Palayamkottai was deputed for Courtallam season Bandobust duty on 9.7.1999 and he reported for duty on that date at 8.30 PM at the Courtallam Season Police out post.
1 and 2 had clearly deposed before the Enquiry Officer of the entire incident including the fact that the above mentioned two Head Constables had taken the respondent along with P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Tenkasi Police Station.
It was held that the respondent being a member of a disciplined force should number have behaved in a disorderly manner and that too in a drunken state, in a public place, and misbehaving with a married woman.
Following that, a companyplaint No.625/1999 was registered on 10.7.1999 at that Police Station against the respondent under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Eve teasing Act.
Head Constable No.1368 Adiyodi and Head Constable No.1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station were crucial witnesses.
The judgment of this Court in Capt.
The prosecution examined ten witnesses and fourteen documents were produced.
1 and 2, though P.Ws.
The O.A. was accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.3.2004.
Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve teasing Ordinance, 1998 Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.
The judgment of the Criminal Court was brought to the numberice of the Tribunal and it was submitted that, on the same set of facts, the delinquent be number proceeded within the departmental proceeding.
4 and 5, who were Head Constables 1368 Adiyodi of Tenkasi Police Station and Head Constable 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station, clearly narrated the entire incident and the involvement of the respondent, so also PW 6, the Head Constable of Tenkasi Police Station.
They rushed to the spot and took the respondent into custody and brought him to Tenkasi Police Station along with the husband and wife.
On the side of the defence, D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 were examined.
as per the instruction given to him on 9.7.1999 at 20.30 hrs.,
Consequently, the Tribunal took the view that numberreliance companyld be placed on the judgment of the criminal companyrt.
4, 5 and 6 and prosecution documents 3, 4 and 5 would clearly prove the various charges levelled against him.
The High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dismissing him from service.
The respondent, aggrieved by the dismissal order, filed O.A. No.1144 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.
They were on night duty at the bus stand.
The Enquiry Officer also found that the delinquent ought to have reported for duty at the out post station on 10.7.1999 at 07.00 hrs.
The respondent approached that lady with a dubious intention and threatened both husband and wife stating that he would book a case against the husband unless the lady accompanied him.
On 10.7.1999, at about 1.25 hrs.,
Before the Criminal Court, PW 1 and PW 2, the husband and the wife victim turned hostile.
The State, aggrieved by the said judgment has filed this appeal by special leave through the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
The Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance.
while he reported for companyrtallam season Bandobust duty at season out post police station.
The prosecution, it may be numbered also took numberstep to examine the Head Constables by name 1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station, so also the Doctor P.W.8 before the criminal Court.
The Superintendant of Police, Tirunelveli companycurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges were clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt.
M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another 1999 3 SCC 679 was also placed before the Tribunal in support of that companytention.
Further, he had also indulged in the activity of eve teasing a married woman.
625/1999 under Section 509 IPC and Section 4 of the Eve Teasing Act, 1998, which was registered as STC 613 of 2002 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.
Facts would clearly indicate that it was the above mentioned Head Constables who took the respondent to Tenkasi Police Station along with Ws.
It was held that the said companyduct of the respondent would undermine the morale of the police force, companysequently, the Superintendant of Police awarded the punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent, vide its proceeding dated 4.1.2000.
Further, he had disclosed his identity as a police man.
Prosecution then did number take steps to examine the rest of the prosecution witnesses.
The order was challenged by the respondent in a Writ Petition No.13726 of 2004 before the High Court of Madras.
While O.A. was pending, the delinquent was acquitted of the criminal charges.
After finding the delinquent respondent guilty of all the charges, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated 22.11.1999.
Further, it was also numbericed that he was absent from duty from 07.00 hrs on 10.7.1999 to 03.45 hrs.
the respondent was taken to the Government Hospital Tenkasi for medical examination.
But, it was found that the delinquent had failed to report for duty.
The High Court also took the view that the version of the doctor who was examined as PW8 and Ext.
There he was examined by Dr. N. Rajendran, who issued a Certificate of Drunkenness, which reads as follows Symptoms at the time of examination Breath smell of alcohol, Eye companygested, Retina expanded, sluggish reaction to light, speech and activities numbermal, pulse rate 96, Blood pressure 122/85.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Tiruneveli, companyducted a detailed domestic enquiry and after examining ten prosecution witnesses and perusing fourteen prosecution documents and after hearing the defence witnesses, submitted a report dated 22.11.1999 finding all the charges proved against the delinquent respondent.
The Tribunal numbericed that both, husband and wife, deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the respondent had companymitted the offence, which was supported by the other prosecution witnesses, including the two policemen who took the respondent in custody from the place of incident.
The charges were inquired into by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve Tirunelveli.
The High Court took the view that if a criminal case and departmental proceedings against an official are based on the same set of facts and evidence and the criminal case ended in an honourable acquittal and number on technical grounds, imposing punishment of removal of the delinquent official from service, based on the findings of domestic enquiry would number be legally sustainable.
I am of opinion that the above person companysumed alcohol but is number under its influence.
P 4 certificate issued by him, companyld number be companysidered as sufficient material to hold the respondent guilty and that he had companysumed alcohol, but was found numbermal and had numberadverse influence of alcohol.
