M.Pandi vs The Director General Of Police on 11 November, 2019
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner in
criminal case and disciplinary proceedings are one and the same.
When the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, the
respondents ought to have taken into consideration the said
acquittal and exonerated the petitioner from the charges. The
second respondent, having held that the evidence of P.W.1 / defacto
complainant lacks truthfulness and creates doubt, ought to have
allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the third respondent.
The respondents 1 and 2 failed to see that not only P.W.1 / defacto
complainant and other private witnesses denied the incident, but
deposed that they did not know the petitioner and they signed in
4/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.16445 of 2018
the blank papers. The first respondent has failed to properly
appreciate the said fact and relied on the judgments reported in
(2006) 1 M.L.J.146 (P.Ramasamy Vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu and others), CDJ 2013 MHC 2594
(P.Sakthivelayuthasamy Vs. The Commandant), 2013 (1)
CWC 344 (N.Ramakrishnan Vs. The Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Tirunelveli), (2006) 2 M.L.J. 489
(V.Kanagasabapathy Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police
and another), Dilip Bhuyan Vs. Central Coalfields Limited
and others dated 16.01.2014.