7.The contention of the petitioner that she informed her superior before leaving the station was not found correct and the contradictions in her defence has been highlighted in the order of the first respondent, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range. The detailed averments of her past conduct and the writ petitions filed by her, as pointed out earlier, are not relevant to this case. By citing those proceedings, the petitioner wants to make out a case that the entire departmental proceedings initiated against her is borne out of mala-fide. But, the criminal case registered against her by Kulithalai Police Station and she was tried for the offences under Section 304-A IPC in C.C.No.241 of 2016 and the two wheeler which she was driving was uninsured, are undisputed facts. Mere acquittal in that case is not a bar to proceed against her for misconduct under the departmental proceedings. Further, the fact of rash and negligence might have been found not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the criminal Court, but the fact that she was not in the work spot on the date and her absence from the duty spot was unauthorised, remain undisputed. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent in the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
