5. Heard Mr.R.Singgaravelan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has taken this Court extensively to the aforesaid proceedings, especially the Enquiry Officer's report. The learned Senior counsel has pointed out that, the entire episode, as has been projected by the prosecution / respondents side, was denied by the petitioner / delinquent, as no such immoral activity taken place on the particular date at the quarters, where the petitioner was residing. Merely because, a woman police constable visited the house of the petitioner, who is co-employee or co-member of the same force, it cannot be presumed by the employer that, some immoral activity had taken place inside the house and with that intention only, the woman constable entered into the house of the petitioner, thereby the petitioner / delinquent had acted with the moral turpitude, therefore, he is liable to be punished, that too with a maximum punishment of dismissal of service and this decision taken by the respondents, especially the first respondent / Appellate Authority, cannot be supported by any materials, as this was decided only based on presumption, as none of the 12 witnesses made any statements to that effect before the Enquiry Officer that, they found both delinquent and the woman constable in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any compromising position.
