R.Sakthivel vs The Director General Of Police on 13 August, 2010
21. Reverting back to the case on hand, on the aspect of perversity in
the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on a judgment of this Court in S.Subbiah Pandian v. Superintendent of
Police, Tirunelveli reported in 2008 (7) MLJ 610. In the reported case, a
police constable challenged the punishment of compulsory retirement on the
ground inter alia that the evidence let in, in the enquiry did not relate to the
charges levelled against him. Therefore, the finding was perverse and
consequently, the disciplinary authority ought not to have imposed an extreme
punishment of compulsory retirement. On the facts of the case, this Court held
that,
"Inasmuch as the proof of charges levelled against the petitioner as
reflected in the findings have no legal evidence to support and eventually such
findings cannot be relied upon, the impugned order of the respondent in having
imposed the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement based on such defective
finding cannot also be sustained."