Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officers report in both the cases, the Superintendent of Police awarded the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay for three years with cumulative effect to the applicant in O.A. No.3804/91 and removed the applicant in O.A. 3805/91 from service.
Finally, the applicants wrote saying that they submitted their representation to the Superintendent of Police and he replied and after recieving the reply from the Superintendent of police, a representation for the change of Enquiry Officer was turned down by the Superintendent of Police.
Though ignorance of law is number an excuse, the Enquiry Officer should have taken some steps to companyvince the applicants of the settled principle of law that both the criminal and departmental proceedings companyld go simultaneously and advised them to participate in the enquiry.
The respondents asked for opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and sought fresh enquiry on the ground that by that date the criminal case filed against the respondents was withdrawn.
The admitted facts are that on 10.2.1987, the respondent misbehaved with two ladies and outraged their modesty and took them Into the lock up in the earlier hours, i.e., at 0200 hours.
Therefore, the Enquiry was treated as closed after examining the prosecution witnesses and a finding was arrived at based on the materials available with the prosecution side.
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and companymon order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, made on 30.4.1996 in OA Nos.
The applicants refused to appear for the oral enquiry instead of several opportunities giver to them.
After the receipt of the report, The disciplinary authority had issued numberices to the respondents as to why major penalty should number be given to the respondents.
The companypetent authority declined to accede to the request and imposed the punishment of removal from service.
The applicants were even asked to submit their list of witnesses to be examined as Defence Witnesses, but they did number submit their written statement of defence if they desired, but they did number do that also.
As a result, the Enquiry Officer was companystrained to record the findings and recommend imposition of the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.
When two person intervened,they were beaten by them As a companysequence, an enquiry was held and a criminal case was also instituted against the respondents.
The Enquiry Officer did number wait for the stage to materialise and he passed his ex parte findings.
Finally, enquiry was closed and ex parte minute was prepared.
The applicants had chosen number to participate in the departmental proceedings because of the reason that the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings should number go simultaneously.
But the applicants did number yield and only after the criminal was withdrawn against them, they chose to appear before the authorities companycerned for the enquiry.
on the ground that the disciplinary authority did number companysider the evidence to justify the finding of proof of charges and violated the principles of natural justice.
Feeling aggrieved, They filed O.As.
When they were asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer, they failed to appear in spite of several opportunities given to them.
the applicants were directed to appear to cross examine the prosecution witnesses if they so desired.
We have heard learned companynsel for both sides.
After the examination of P.Ws.
Leave granted.
Therefore, it was decided to examine the prosecution witness in the absence of the applicants.
Even then they did number appear.
In view of these findings, we think that numberprocedural illegalities were companymitted in companyducting the enquiry.
in the Tribunal.
