Madras High Court
S. Manickam vs Superintendent Of Police And Ors. on 1 May, 1963
Equivalent citations: AIR1964MAD375, (1963)IILLJ62MAD, AIR 1964 MADRAS 375, (1963) 2 LABLJ 62
ORDER Veeraswami, J.
1. This petition has to be allowed and the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service has to be quashed on a short ground, namely, that there is a serious defect in the charge. After setting out the charge, the memo of charge proceeded as follows:
"Show cause why you1 should not be dismissed from the force or otherwise punished for the above gross indisciplinary conduct."
Then followed the statement that it was proposed to hold an oral enquiry on the charge. This method of framing a charge is not in consonance with Article 311. At the stage of the charge, no question of punishment can arise. The fact that the proposed punishment is mentioned in the charge can only show that even before the charges were enquired into and a finding arrived at on the basis of the enquiry, the petitioner had been prejudged. On this short ground, as I said, the order of dismissal is Quashed.
The petition is allowed. No costs.