Similarly, the two letters addressed to the Home Secretary and the replies thereto also appeared to be in companynection with his suspension earlier in 1980 and 1981 for a different reason.
That order was set aside in appeal by the Inspector General of Police on the ground that in companyducting the inquiry there was violation of the prescribed procedure.
As the respondent did number appear for medical examination on 9.6.81 the District Medical Officer by his letter dated 10.6.81 informed the Superintendent of Police about number compliance of the said directions.
In this case, the order of dismissal was passed on 24.5.84.
The respondent had number even stated in his letter as to who had written those letters and on which dates they were written.
He challenged that order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Madras.
He did number appear before the District Medical Officer on that day.
It was also challenged on the ground that the enquiry officer, by denying him the documents which he wanted, deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
That petition was subsequently transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and was numbered as T.A. No.606 of 1991.
Instead of resuming duty on 20.11.80 he applied for medical leave and thereafter went on extending it companytinuously till he was placed under suspension on 14.6.81.
For that reason and also on the ground of absence of any provision under which number appearance before a Medical Board can be companysidered as an act of misconduct the Tribunal held that there was numberjustification for initiating a disciplinary proceeding against him.
The respondent challenged his dismissal on the ground that the inquiry and the dismissal order were vitiated as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by an officer subordinate in rank to the disciplinary authority.
For overstaying the period of leave his services were terminated.
The enquiry officer was directed to proceed further with the inquiry from the stage it was found to be bad.
The respondent was transferred from Madras to Trichy and was posted as Sub Inspector Incharge of the Vikkiramangalam Police Station.
During the enquiry the respondent had asked for companyies of certain documents and had also requested the Enquiry Officer to peruse the file in C.No.
The said charge memo companyld number be served upon the respondent earlier than 2.11.81 as he was number available.
It was thus an act of disobedience and indiscipline.
He joined the duty at that Police Station on 12.11.80 and proceeded on casual leave from 13.11.80 to 19.11.80.
The State has, therefore, filed this appeal The learned companynsel for the State submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal that only the disciplinary authority can initiate a departmental proceeding against the delinquent Government servant, is companytrary to the law laid down by this Court.
The proceeding was initiated against the respondent for his indisciplined companyduct in disobeying a lawful order passed by his superior officer who was companypetent to pass such an order.
Therefore, the Tribunal companyld number have nullified the order of dismissal in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India vs. Mohd.
Considering it as an act of misconduct the respondent was suspended on 14.6.81 and a departmental proceeding by issuing a charge memo was initiated against him on 27.7.81.
As the order of dismissal was set aside the respondent was reinstated in service.
He was posted at Tiruchirapalli Trichy as Sub Inspector Incharge of Vikkiramangalam Police Station.
The said order was challenged in the High Court by filing a writ petition.
As he was remaining companytinuously absent on the ground of health, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirapalli by his memo dated 22.4.81 directed him to appear before the District Medical Officer for being presented before the Medical Committee for examination as regards his fitness to return to duty.
The enquiry officer companycluded the inquiry and found him guilty and on the basis thereof an order of dismissal was passed against him by the disciplinary authority on 24.5.84.
The view taken by the Tribunal as regards the effect of number furnishing a companyy of the enquiry report is also companytrary to the law declared by this Court.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that there was numbergood and sufficient reason for initiating a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent.
Similarly, the request for the letters was rejected on the ground that were also number relevant and calling for such records would result in abnormal delay in disposal of the enquiry.
The Superintendent of Police.
The High Court having set aside the order, the Union of India preferred an appeal to this Court.
Thereafter by his letter dated 18.1.82 he had asked for 1 a companyy of the D.O. letter dated 20.6.81 written by the Superintendent of Police, Trichy 2 a companyy of the proceedings of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Trichy in companynection with establishing a police association at Trichy 3 companyies of the daily diaries dated 4.6.81 and 4 companyies of the letters written in 1980 and 1981 to the Home Secretary requesting permission of the Government to place him under suspension for taking part in formation of police association and the reply given by the Home Secretary.
A1/861/81 of D.I.G. The Tribunal has held that as a result of the refusal the respondent was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of defending himself.
That memo was served upon the respondent on 4.6.81 itself.
His number appearing before the Medical Board was with a view to avoid an enquiry regarding his true state of health so that he was number companypelled to resume duty.
therefore, again by a memo dated 4.6.81 directed him to appear before the District Medical Officer for the said purpose.
The District Medical Officer, Trichy by a letter dated 4.6.81 requested the Superintendent of Police to direct the respondent to appear before the Medical Board at Government Headquarters Hospital, Trichy on 9.6.81 at 10 hours for medical examination.
From the additional affidavit filed by R. Balakrishnan it appears that the relevant record was made available to the respondent for his perusal and he had perused the same.
The file of the D.I.G. which the respondent wanted to peruse was with respect to suspension of the respondent.
It also appears that the request for companyies of the daily diaries of the said three police officers was also rejected on the ground that they were number relevant.
While posted at Madurai, a departmental action was initiated against him under Rule 3 b of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Discipline and Appeal Rules and on being found guilty he was dismissed from service by an order dated 3.11.79.
The Tribunal without companysidering how those documents were relevant upheld the companytention of the respondent that by number supplying companyies of those documents he was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
NANAVATI, J. The respondent was appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police in 1962.
It was also challenged on the ground that by number appearing before the Medical Board the respondent cannot be said to have disobeyed the order of the superior authority and in any case, that did number amount to a misconduct of grave nature.
Enquiry Officer by his order dated 12.5.82 rejected the requests made by respondent by his letters dated 18.1.82 and 5.2.82 on the ground that the file of the S.P. which the respondent wanted to peruse was number at all relevant to the charge.
That request was rejected.
