Aggrieved by the order or the Tribunal, the present appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellants.
Highly reprehensible companyduct as a member of Crime Detective Party In number having shown the arrest of one Hentry Victor and Shahul Hameed companycerned in CCS.
Therefore, the respodent moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras by filing O.A. NO.
The respondent was tried along with one Head Constable and two Police Constables.
The Disciplinary Authority for the respondent, at the relevant time, was the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, who companycurred with the Report of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by an Order dated 21.4.87.
In the meanwhile, the respondent was transferred to Tirunelveli District.
257/83 under Section 547/380 IPC which was registered on 12.5.1983 on the companyplaint of T. Dennison and keeping the accused for number of days without any record In having number recovered the property under proper mahazar and number properly accounted for the cloths and money recovered from various places in Tamil Nadu.
446 of 1991.
The Tribunal by an order dated 6.5.96 set aside the order of dismissal mainly on the ground that the Enquiry Report was number furnished to the respondent herein before the impugned order was passed and that the Enquiry Report was number furnished to the respondent herein before the impugned order was passed and that the authority companypetent to pass the order of dismissal was the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.
In having charged the actual properties recovered in Cr.
Where the respondent was working when the charge was framed.
Heard companynsel on both sides.
Regular enquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thuckalay Kanyakumari District , who found that the first companynt of the charge is proved but number the second one.
One other ground also was given by the Tribunal for setting aside the order of dismissal, namely, that the companydelinquents were let off without any punishment except the Head Constable, who was only companypulsorily retired.
The appeal filed by the respondent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli, was dismissed on 9.12.87.
THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998.
He was proceeded departmentally for the following charges Highly reprehensible companyduct in having demanded and exrtracted gold jewels weighing 31 grams from one T.Pitchandi Asari, Thangam Jewellers, Alexandria Press Road, Nagercoil, under companyrcion on 28.5.1983 with other members of crime detective party.
In having number issued with any receipt to the said T.Pitchandi Asari, or in number having seized the said jewells under proper mahazar and In number having showed the jewels in any of the crime investigated by the Crime Detective Party.
The Review filed to the Director General of Police was also rejected on 5.2.90.
The other companydeliquents were also transferred to another neighbouring District.
490 pf 1983.
The respondent was working as Police Constable in Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu.
for the appellants.
for the Respondent J U D E M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Venkataswami, J. Speical leave granted.
According to the Tribunal, the transfer was for administrative purpose pending Enquiry and he should have been re transferred after the enquiry was over and the final order should have been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.
for M s. Arputham, Aruna Co., Advs.
