Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1963 DIGILAW 155 (MAD)

S. Manickam v. Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris and others

1963-05-01

VEERASWAMI

body1963
Judgement ORDER :- 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 you should not be dismissed from the force or otherwise punished for the above gross in disciplinary conduct." Then followed the statement that it was proposed hold an oral enquiry on the charge. This method of framing a charge is not in consonance with Art. 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. Petition allowed.