The Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for records relating to the 3rd respondent in PR No.2/2005 under rule 17(b) dated 21.9.2005 in awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement from service and the order passed in appeal by the second respondent in C.No.B2/AP 04/2006 dated 3.2.2006 in rejecting the appeal and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back to service with all attendant benefits and with due regards to her seniority.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- The writ petitioner joined the services of the respondent department as Junior Assistant under physically handicapped quota in November, 1981. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant in the year 1994. Thereafter, she was conferred with Selection Grade Assistant. In November 2004, petitioner was transferred and posted to L1 seat from H1 seat. From 24.11.2004, petitioner was absent. On 18.1.2005, charges were framed on four counts and they are as follows:-
"1. Highly reprehensible conduct of disobedience of orders of Superintendent of Police, in not accepting the orders of transfer and handing over and taking over charges in H1 seat and L1 seat respectfully as per D.O.No.995/2004 in C.No.A2/31622/2004, dated 08.11.2004.
2. Highly reprehensible conduct by refusing to meet the Superintendent of Police, with Police Housing Board file on 22.11.2004 as instructed.
3. Reprehensible conduct by absenting for duty from 24.11.2004 and
4. Reprehensible conduct by failure to call for Priority List and auditing Contingent Bills in H1 seat as instructed by the Personal Assistant to Superintendent of Police."
Notice of enquiry was issued to the petitioner and an enquiry is said to have been conducted ex parte and the minutes of enquiry was drawn on 4.8.2005. The enquiry officer found that all the charges were proved against the petitioner. The memo issued by the third respondent on 28.2.2005 enclosing a copy of the minutes of the enquiry was sought to be served on the petitioner through the Superintendent of the Section. However, the Superintendent has returned the memo on 12.9.2005 stating that the petitioner refused to receive the memo along with the copy of the minutes. The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District, the Competent Disciplinary Authority, passed orders ordering compulsory retirement on 21.9.2005. Against this order of compulsory retirement, an appeal was preferred on 10.10.2005 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, who rejected the appeal on 3.2.2006. A review was filed before the Additional Director General of Police and it is pending. In the meanwhile, this writ petition has been filed.
3. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the charge memo, notice of enquiry, minutes of enquiry report and the final order of the disciplinary authority has not been served on the petitioner in the manner known to law. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice and the whole proceedings of the department is arbitrary.
4. The further contention of the petitioner is that the leave taken from 24.11.2004 on medical grounds has been regularised and that has not been properly considered by the authority. So far as the charge relating to refusal to meet higher officer, it is stated that no memo has been issued for the same. For all these reasons, it is contended that the order of compulsory retirement has to be set aside.
5. Heard Mr.T.Seenivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, who referred to the counter-affidavit and stated that the petitioner deliberately refused to receive all the proceedings mentioned above and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Certain endorsement in the file was shown to the court stating that the petitioner refused to receive the charge memo. Such endorsement is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The appellate authority as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner has passed an order as follows:-
"5. I have gone through the appeal petition, PR file and other connected records. Disobedience of orders of Superintendent of Police in not accepting the orders of transfer and handing over and taking over the charges of seats as per D.O.995/2004 that too refusing to meet the Superintendent of Police with Police Housing Board File for discussion is serious one and they were rightly held proved. The appellant has not put forth any valid points for consideration and the contents in her appeal petition are not convincing. Hence, I decline to interfere with the award of punishment. The appeal is rejected."
In the above order, there is no mention that service on the petitioner has been done properly and there is violation of principles of natural justice. There is no discussion with regard to the regularisation of leave as claimed by the petitioner.
7. From the above, it is clear that the issues raised by the writ petitioner, viz., dispute with regard to the proper service of notice and other proceedings on the petitioner and appreciation of material on record, particularly, the plea taken with regard to regularisation of the leave taken have not been considered in the proper perspective. All these factors are questions of fact which have to be considered by the reviewing authority before whom the review is pending. The dispute with regard to service of notice and enquiry report and other records of proceedings can be verified by the reviewing authority.
8. At this stage, this court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the respondent except to direct the Director General of Police, the reviewing authority to dispose of the review petition on merits by a reasoned order touching upon of the issues raised by the petitioner. The reviewing authority shall also afford an opportunity to the petitioner to appear either in person or through counsel. The review petition shall be heard and disposed of as early as possible preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The relief of certiorari stands rejected, however, there will be a mandamus issued to the Director General of Police, the first respondent to dispose of the review petition as indicated above. Writ Petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs.
ts To
1.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District