The Government by its order dated 15 4 1991 modified the punishment to that of companypulsory retirement in the case of Joseph and it also modified the punishment imposed on the respondent to removal from service.
The respondent filed an application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for setting aside the order of punishment.
The respondent Srivaikundathan while working as a Police Constable was assigned along with Naik Joseph, the duty of escorting two prisoners from Central Jail, Palayankottai to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, Ambasamundram on 20 5 1987.
The Tribunal has also directed reinstatement of the respondent in service.
In the departmental enquiry, both were found guilty of the charges and the disciplinary authority imposed on both the punishment of dismissal from service by its order dated 31 5 1988.
Accordingly he along with Joseph Naik 2495 were issued handcuffs, rifles and bus warrants for prisoners escort duty.
No companyplaint, however, was lodged by the respondent and Joseph until the next day at 12 p.m. when they falsely reported that prisoner Ulaganatham escaped when he was permitted by Joseph and the respondent to get down from the bus in order to relieve himself.
After taking charge of the prisoners, the respondent and Joseph left the handcuffs in a petty shop near the Central Jail, Palayankottai.
On the return journey, instead of companying directly to Palayankottai, the respondent and Joseph, along with the prisoners broke the return journey at Cheramandevi.
Both the respondent and Joseph were charge sheeted.
Both the prisoners were taken to Ambasamundram and were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamundram.
One of the prisoners Ulaganatham was unauthorisedly taken to his village to visit his relations and companycubine.
The Tribunal has set aside the punishment of removal from service and has remitted the matter to the Superintendent of Police to reconsider the extent of the guilt of the respondent with the stipulation that numberpunishment involving termination of service should be imposed on the respondent.
The appellants have, therefore, preferred the present appeal.
The departmental enquiry was held in which inter alia the evidence of PW 9, Investigating Officer, was led along with other evidence.
The Tribunal was number sitting in appeal over the findings of the Enquiry Officer, number was the Tribunal required to examine the nature of the evidence which was led as if it were a criminal trial.
The respondent and Joseph left their rifles at the press of Ibrahim PW 9 .
He escaped.
