Madras High Court
L.Senthil Kumar vs The Director General Of Police on 22 August, 2022
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.7005 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.7005 of 2015
L.Senthil Kumar ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Road,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Salem Range, Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the order of the 3rd respondent in P.R.No.18/2010 Rule 3(b) dated
22.09.2011, to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7005 of 2015
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits
of continuity of service, back pay etc. and to regularise the period of
suspension from 16.06.2009 to 22.09.2011 as duty for all purposes.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ravi
for Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The order of punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner in proceedings dated 22.09.2011 is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner states that he was enlisted as Police Constable Grade-II on 09.06.1993. He states that a false criminal case has been registered against him under Section 379 IPC by Dharmapuri Town Police Station, Dharmapuri in Crime No.1102/2009 in respect of theft of a vehicle belonging to the Police Department, namely Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN 24 G 0145, which had been parked near Dharmapuri 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7005 of 2015 Town Police Station and Police Quarters. The said vehicle had been allotted to Thiru.Murali, Inspector of Police, Special Branch. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District on 16.06.2009. A charge memo was issued and an enquiry was conducted. Since the petitioner had not participated in the process of enquiry, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges against the petitioner as proved.
The enquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, who in turn issued the second show cause notice, enclosing a copy of the enquiry report, asking the charged official to submit his further explanation. The petitioner has not responded and thus, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service.
3. The ground raised by the petitioner is that when a criminal case was pending before the competent Court of law, the Disciplinary Authority ought not to have completed the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
When the facts and evidences in both the proceedings are one and the same, the departmental disciplinary proceedings are to be kept in abeyance till the 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7005 of 2015 final disposal of the criminal case. Thus, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
4.The petitioner has not availed the opportunity afforded to him by the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer, but he remained ex-
parte. Inspite of affording an opportunity to defend his case, the petitioner intentionally failed to avail the same and therefore, the ex-parte enquiry conducted by the authorities competent cannot be held as violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or violation of the principles of natural justice in the matter of conducting the disciplinary proceedings.
5. There is no bar for simultaneous proceedings. To convict a person under the criminal law, strict proof is required. However, no such strict proof is required to punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Thus, pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for the authorities to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner, who was working as a Constable, has involved in theft of a 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7005 of 2015 police vehicle allotted to the Inspector of Police, based on which, a charge memo was framed and the competent authorities proceeded with the departmental disciplinary proceedings and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service.
6. Regarding the simultaneous proceedings, this Court has considered the principles in the case of K.P.T.Stalin Vs. The Additional Director of Survey and Land Records and others passed in W.P.(MD) No.14356 of 2019, dated 08.02.2022, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"5.In view of the complex nature of issues raising doubt in the minds of the disciplinary authority, this Court is inclined to summarize the following principles, which are all to be followed in the cases of simultaneous proceedings (i.e., departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal cases).
(a)It is a settled law that criminal case and the departmental disciplinary proceedings may be initiated simultaneously as the case may be;
(b)an order of suspension, if required, may be issued in the prescribed format as per the rules;
(c)if the records and evidences are available with the 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7005 of 2015 disciplinary authority, then without any loss of time, charge memorandum shall be issued and the disciplinary proceedings may go on;
(d)The question to be considered is whether simultaneous proceedings may go on or not?;
(e)The departmental domestic enquiry and the criminal trial shall proceed simultaneously and the decision in the criminal case would not materially affect the outcome of the domestic enquiry;
(f)The nature of both proceedings and the test applied to reach final conclusion in the matter are entirely different.
(g)If the case involves complicated questions of fact and law and the disciplinary authority is not in possession of the required materials for the purpose of conducting enquiry, then administrative decision may be taken to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance. till the disposal of the criminal case.
However, the advisability and desirability has to be determined considering the facts of each case by the authority concerned. Therefore, it would be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible.
(h)There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7005 of 2015 simultaneously.
(i)Acquittal by a criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with service rules and regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of departmental enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service rules.
(j)In the criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused -beyond reasonable doubt-, he cannot be convicted by a Court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of -preponderance of probability-. To convict a person under criminal law, high standard of proof is required. Even the benefit of doubt would be a benefit for the accused in a criminal case. However, no such strict proof is required in a departmental disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, there is absolutely no bar for the respondents to continue the departmental 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7005 of 2015 disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same and pass final orders.
(k)An order of conviction if any passed in the criminal case or in criminal appeal, after disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, then if necessary the Head of the department or the Government may exercise the power of review as the case may be under the relevant rules.
(l)Order of acquittal if at all passed in the criminal case or in criminal appeal, the same would not affect the final orders already passed in the departmental disciplinary proceedings based on the domestic enquiry conducted, in view of the fact that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be a ground for seeking exoneration from the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
(m)If the criminal case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and if the original records are seized by the investigating agency, then the disciplinary authority may obtain the true copies of the documents and proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
(n)As far as the departmental corruption allegations are concerned, it is not necessary that the disciplinary 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7005 of 2015 authority should wait for the final disposal of the criminal case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."
7. At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is an habitual offender and involved in various criminal case. The details of the criminal cases registered against the petitioner are as follows:-
Sl. Details of PS, Cr.No and u/s Present Stage No. i. Dharmapuri Town PS The case was ended in acquittal on Cr.No.1102/2009, u/s 379 IPC. 27.05.2016 registered on 11.06.2009.
ii. Uthangarai PS Charge Sheet was filed before the Cr.No.407/2013, u/s. 279, 304(A) IPC Judicial Magistrate Court-II, registered on 19.08.2013. Krishnagiri on 31.05.2017 and taken on Subsequently, the case was transferred file in C.C.No.73/2018 on 28.06.2018. to DCB, Krishnagiri. (Total No of witnesses 28) None of the witnesses examined so far. The case posted for hearing on 23.08.2022 for the examination of witnesses.
iii. Uthangarai PS Charge sheet was filed before the Cr.No.439/2018, u/s. 294(b), 323, 324, Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthangarai 506 (ii) IPC registered on 01.10.2018. on 12.11.2018 and taken on file in CC.No.59/2019 on 26.03.2018 (Total No of witnesses 10). The case is last posted for hearing on 14.03.2022 for the examination of witnesses.
iv. Krishnagiri Taluk PS Charge sheet was filed before the Cr.No.280/2013, u/s 379 IPC registered Judicial Magistrate Court-II, on 26.07.2013. Krishnagiri on 31.08.2013 and taken on 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7005 of 2015 file in CC.No.216/2013 on 12.12.2013.
(Total No of witnesses 37). 33 witnesses examined so far. The case is last posted for hearing on 04.03.2022 for the examination of PWs 20 and 33.
v. Krishnagiri Town PS The case is under investigation.
Cr.No.17/2022, u/s 457, 380 IPC registered on 05.07.2022 vi. Uthangarai PS The case is under investigation.
Cr.No.312/2022, u/s 32, 427, 506 (2) IPC registered on 05.07.2022 vii. C2 - Crime PS - Race Course, Charge sheet was filed before the Coimbatore City Judicial Magistrate Court-III, Cr.No.610/2021, u/s. 457, 380 IPC Coimbatore City on 27.04.2022. registered on 14.09.2021 viii. C2 - Crime PS - Race Course, The case is under investigation.
Coimbatore City Cr.No.749/2021, u/s. 457, 380 IPC registered on 26.10.2021 ix. C2 - Crime PS - Race Course, The case is under investigation.
Coimbatore City Cr.No.750/2021, u/s. 457, 380 IPC registered on 26.10.2021 x. C2 - Crime PS - Race Course, The case is under investigation.
Coimbatore City Cr.No.807/2021, u/s. 457, 380 IPC registered on 10.11.2021 xi. C2 - Crime PS - Race Course, The case is under investigation.
Coimbatore City Cr.No.808/2021, u/s. 457, 380 IPC registered on 10.11.2021
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that in respect of the theft of Police vehicle by the petitioner, a criminal case was registered and based 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7005 of 2015 on the departmental disciplinary proceedings, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. That apart, the petitioner is facing several criminal cases and therefore, he is unfit to continue in the uniformed police services. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal cannot be construed as disproportionate and the same stands confirmed.
9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
22.08.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7005 of 2015 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
hvk To
1.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.
W.P.No.7005 of 201522.08.2022 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis