8.The officer, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, has admitted that the second complaint in Crime No.285/2012 is foisted against accused. During enquiry, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was examined as prosecution witness, has admitted that the murder of one Soundirapandian is on account of a rumour that one of the persons from the accused group by name Manimaran, died as a result of an attack by a group of persons belonged to the victim side. Therefore, during enquiry, the reason for the murder was stated to be on account of a specific reason which has nothing to do with the petitioner. Since the petitioner has given an explanation to the second and third charges by stating that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had requested the petitioner not to go to the Village after the incident of murder, the veracity of such statement should be examined by the respondent. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner has made a suggestion to the officer, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, that the petitioner was asked not to come to the village due to the emotional turbulence in the village after the murder. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not taking action against the accused by arresting them following the incident. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the crime registered in Crime No.22/13 wherein it is stated that petrol bombs were recovered from the main accused in Crime No.19/13. During enquiry, the petitioner pointed out several aspects and events which are relevant and ought to have been considered by the respondent. However, the respondent, without considering those important aspects revealed during enquiry, has imposed the punishment of removal from service.
