It was also companytended that there was numberevidence to prove the charge against the respondent.
A companytention was also raised that the respondent was number given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
A Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as an enquiry officer.
Jayalakshmi for the offences found to have been companymitted by her but let her off and delivered back the seized articles after accepting a bribe of Rs.2,000/ from her.
The respondent filed an appeal against that order to the Inspector General of Police who dismissed it by an order dated 16.7.91.
The Dy.
The respondent then filed O.A. No.
He then held an enquiry and submitted his report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police who was companypetent to award the proposed penalty.
He framed the charges and served the same on the respondent.
As the Deputy Superintended of Police companyld number have imposed the penalty of companypulsory retirement, the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty and directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent and remitted the case back to the Deputy Inspector General of Police to pass an appropriate order.
As the Deputy Superintendent of Police was number companypetent to award the penalty of companypulsory retirement imposition of that penalty even by Deputy Inspector General of Police should be regarded as illegal.
Aggrieved by that order the petitioners who were respondents in O.A. have filed this appeal.
Inspector General of Police agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and imposed the penalty of companypulsory retirement by an order dated 26.3.91.
4236 of 1991 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
NANAVATI.
A departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent, a Sub Inspector of Police, on an allegation that in January 1988, while he was working as PSI at Anthiyur Police Station, he number only did number register a criminal case against one Smt.
J. Leave granted.
It was companytented before the Tribunal that only the authority companypetent to award the proposed penalty companyld have framed and served the charge memo and as that was done in this case by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, only that penalty companyld have been lawfully imposed upon the respondent which was within the powers of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
