Judgment :- 1. The petitioner No.2 is the wife of Thirunavukkarasu, the petitioner No.1 who filed O.A.No.4566 of 2002 (W.P.No.4296 of 2006) died on 11.05.2010 at 11.50 hours and the petitioners 2 to 6 were brought on record as legal representatives. 2. Thirunavukkarasu (deceased) was working as Head Constable, Kottakuppam Police station, Villupuram District. While so, a charge memo dated 17.5.2001 was issued under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules 1955 calling for explanation on two charges levelled against him. The first charge was that he was unauthorisedly absent from 15.02.2001. The second charge was that on 19.02.2001, he abused and threatened S.Kuppusamy, Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Police Station and interfered with his official duties. It was also alleged that a criminal case in Cr.No.89 of 2001 on the file of Chidambaram Police station was registered against the petitioners under Sec.294, 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. The deceased Thirunavukkarasu was placed under suspension by order dated 28.02.2001 and an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottakuppam wherein nine witnesses were examined and eleven documents were marked on the side of the department and two witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner (deceased). The enquiry officer gave his report dated 09.11.2001 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Based on the findings, the second respondent sought for explanation from the petitioner in respect of the findings of the enquiry officer. Thereafter, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.03.2002 removing the petitioner from service. The deceased Thirunavukkarasu filed an appeal to the first respondent on 28.03.2002. The first respondent rejected the appeal on 13.05.2002. The petitioner has filed O.A.No.4566 of 2002 (W.P.No.4296 of 2006) to quash the order dated 12.03.2002 of the second respondent and the order dated 13.05.2002 of the first respondent and reinstate him with all consequential benefits. Since the petitioner Thirunavuk-karasu died on 11.05.2010, his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 6. 3. The second respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made in the petition. It is averred in the reply affidavit that the deceased Thirunavukkarasu was serving in Coastal Security Wing, Pommaiyarpalayam Check post, Villupuram District from 13.09.2000 and was attached to Villupuram District. He absented himself for duty from 15.02.2001 without leave or permission. 3. The second respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made in the petition. It is averred in the reply affidavit that the deceased Thirunavukkarasu was serving in Coastal Security Wing, Pommaiyarpalayam Check post, Villupuram District from 13.09.2000 and was attached to Villupuram District. He absented himself for duty from 15.02.2001 without leave or permission. It is further stated that at about 19.15 hours on 19.02.2001, near Gandhi Statute, the Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police station while checking vehicles, a rider of TVS 50 vehicle bearing registration No.H8458 was questioned about the records pertaining to the vehicle. The deceased Thirunavukkarasu intervened and told the Inspector of Police that the person was his relative and not to enquire him further. The Inspector of Police replied that the two wheeler rider would be let off if there was no fault on him after thorough enquiry. But the deceased Thirunavukkarasu threatened the Inspector that he would kill him and abused him with filthy languages and also did not allow the Inspector to do his official duties. In this connection, a case in Cr.No.89 of 2001 under Sec.294, 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. was registered against the deceased Thirunavukkarasu and the criminal case is pending. He was placed under suspension by order dated 28.02.2001 with effect from 12.03.2001. He was released from suspension with effect from 21.6.2001, without prejudice to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. For absenting from duty without leave or permission from 15.02.2002 and for quarrel made with the Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police station, the deceased Thirunavukkarasu was issued charge memo dated 17.05.2001. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottakuppam Police station, Villupuram District was appointed as enquiry officer. He conducted an enquiry wherein nine witnesses were examined on the side of the department and two witnesses were examined on the side of the defence. The enquiry officer found charges were proved. Based on the findings, the deceased Thirunavukkarasu was removed from service by the second respondent by order dated 12.03.2002. His appeal was rejected by the first respondent by order dated 13.05.2002. There is no infirmity in the orders of both the first and the second respondents and hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the deceased Thirunavukkarasu was not able to attend duty from 15.02.2001 to 20.02.2001 due to illness. There is no infirmity in the orders of both the first and the second respondents and hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the deceased Thirunavukkarasu was not able to attend duty from 15.02.2001 to 20.02.2001 due to illness. He brought to my notice a passage in the impugned order dated 12.03.2002 removing the petitioner from service wherein it is recorded that delinquent stated that he developed giddiness due to chest pain and he went to Chidambaram for taking treatment. Further, it is submitted that the criminal case registered against the deceased Thirunavukkarasu ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 18.02.2004 in C.C.No.190 of 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Chidambaram. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the evidence of Thiru Kuppusamy, Inspector of Police, Chidamabaram Police station that on complaint, F.I.R. was registered and also disciplinary action was initiated. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police station deposed that he was abused by Thirunavukkarasu. Under these circumstances, instead of removing the petitioner Thirunavukkarasu from service, some other minor punishment could have been imposed and his widow can be granted pension. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate contended that there is no illegality or infirmity with the order of the respondents 1 and 2 and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 8. The deceased petitioner Thirunavukkarasu was working as Head Constable in Villupuram District. He was placed under suspension by order dated 28.02.2001. Pending disciplinary action. A charge memo dated 17.05.2001 was issued under Rule 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules calling for explanation for two charges levelled against him. The first charge was that he was unauthorisedly absent from 15.02.2001 to 20.02.2001. While so, he involved in an incident on 19.02.2001 at 19.15 hours at Chidambaram Town Police station. The allegation was that he abused the Inspector of Police and also threatened him. A criminal case was registered in Cr.No.89 of 2001 on the file of Chidambaram Police station under Sec.294, 353, 506(ii) of I.P.C. The deceased Thirunavukkarasu submitted his explanation dated 8.6.2001 requesting the second respondent not to proceed with the charge memo till disposal of the criminal case. A criminal case was registered in Cr.No.89 of 2001 on the file of Chidambaram Police station under Sec.294, 353, 506(ii) of I.P.C. The deceased Thirunavukkarasu submitted his explanation dated 8.6.2001 requesting the second respondent not to proceed with the charge memo till disposal of the criminal case. But the second respondent appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kottakuppam as enquiry officer. He conducted enquiry wherein 9 witnesses were examined on the side of the department and two witnesses were examined on the side of delinquent. The relevant witness in the enquiry in my considered view is Mr.Kuppusamy, Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Police station. I have gone through the evidence of Mr.Kuppusamy. He deposed that Thirunavukkarasu abused him and also threatened him on 19.02.2001 at 19.15 hours in relation to an incident wherein a relative of Thirunavukkarasu was questioned by the Inspector of Police. The criminal case initiated against the deceased Thirunavukkarasu in C.C.No.190 of 2001 ended in acquittal. The copy of the judgment is placed before me. The registration of criminal case against the deceased was the subject matter of charge memo. Pursuant to the registration of criminal case against the deceased, the second respondent passed an order dated 12.03.2002 imposing major punishment of removal from service. Even in the reply affidavit filed by this Court, it is stated that the criminal case is still pending. Therefore, the reply affidavit reveals that keeping the criminal case in mind, the second respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service against the deceased Thirunavukkarasu. Furthermore, the evidence of Mr.Kuppusamy, Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Police station reveals that the deceased used abusive language against him and based on the same, the criminal case was registered. 9. In respect of other charge that the deceased petitioner was absented from 15.02.2001, on 19.02.2001, the deceased Thirunavukkarasu was arrested in a criminal case. Later, he was released on bail. In the meantime, he was placed under suspension with effect from 28.02.2001. Hence, the period of absence is less than a week. In the impugned order, the second respondent has recorded that Thirunavukkarasu pleaded that he developed giddiness due to chest pain and went to Chidambaram for taking treatment and therefore, he could not attend duty and the same was rejected by the second respondent. 10. Hence, the period of absence is less than a week. In the impugned order, the second respondent has recorded that Thirunavukkarasu pleaded that he developed giddiness due to chest pain and went to Chidambaram for taking treatment and therefore, he could not attend duty and the same was rejected by the second respondent. 10. In respect of the second charge, taking into account the evidence of Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Police station and the judgment of the criminal case which ended in acquittal, I am of the considered view that the second respondent was not correct in imposing the punishment of removal from service against the deceased Thirunavukkarasu and instead a minor punishment could have been imposed against the deceased petitioner. In respect of the first charge, i.e., absent from duty without leave or permission from 15.02.2001, taking into account the short period of absence, the punishment of removal from service is not justified. 11. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 12.03.2002 and 13.05.2002 are set aside. However, it is made clear that the deceased Thirunavukkarasu is not entitled to wages from the date of removal from service till the date of death. The respondents are directed to treat the period, i.e., the date of removal from service till the date of death as service for the purpose of terminal benefits. The respondents are directed to settle the terminal benefits to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.