Madras High Court
A.Sridharan vs The Director General Of Police on 29 September, 2022
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P.No.15332 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 28.07.2022
Pronounced on 29.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Writ Petition No.15332 of 2010
A.Sridharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
O/o The District General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 4.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Villupuram Range,
Villupuram.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District. … Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire
records of the proceedings of the third respondent issued in
C.No.D2/P.R.42/2008 U/R 3(b) dated 02.07.2009 and the order passed in
Appeal by the second respondent in C.No.B3/Appeal 18/09 dated 11.09.2009
Page No.1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15332 of 2010
and the order passed by the first respondent in Rc.No.210964/AP.1(2)/2009
dated 10.06.2010 and quash the same consequently directing the respondents
to promote the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police on par with his Juniors
with all attendant and monetary benefits and to treat the period of suspension
as duty with all benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ravikkumar
For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was enlisted as a Grade- II Constable on 09.01.1976 and subsequently upgraded as a Grade-I Constable and then promoted as a Head Constable on 10.10.1999. This being so, the third respondent has issued a proceeding in P.R.No.42/2008, u/r 3(b) of TNPSS, dated 04.08.2008, alleging certain baseless charges against the petitioner. The crux of the charges levelled against the petitioner is as follows:-
Charge No.1 On 31.05.2008 night, about 9.30.p.m., he has demanded bribe from one Varadharajan S/o. Sanjeevarayar.
Charge No.2 Page No.2 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 Reprehensible conduct for having involved in criminal case in Cuddalore New Town Police Station in Cr.No.263/08/u/s 147, 148,341, 394, 324, 323, 506(ii) IPC, as assaulted one Varadharajan S/o. Sanjeevarayar with deadly weapon along with his three sons and Kamal of Devanampattinam.
1.1. To enquire the aforesaid charges, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyveli was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and for the same set of identical charges, a criminal case was also registered in Cr.No.263/2008 and charge sheet was also laid in C.C.No.285/2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore. After conducting a detailed trail by the Criminal Court, the petitioner was exonerated from the criminal charges as there was no evidence against him on 10.03.2009.
2. After acquittal from the criminal case, the petitioner has enclosed a copy of judgment rendered by the learned Trail Court along with a detailed explanation dated 01.04.2009 before the enquiry officer. However, the enquiry officer ignored the aforesaid explanation and held that the charge No.1 was proved against the petitioner by way of conducting an enquiry. Page No.3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 Even though the petitioner was exonerated from the criminal charges, the enquiry officer has came to the conclusion that Charge No.2 was also proved against the petitioner.
2.1. The report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner on 18.04.2009 and immediately, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 20.04.2009 before the third respondent/ the Superintendent of Police, to drop the charges against him based on the evidences adduced during the enquiry and on the basis of the acquittal from the criminal charges. But, without considering any of the points raised in the representation, the third respondent issued a proceeding in C.No.D2/P.R.42/2008 dated 02.07.2009, imposed a punishment of “Reduction in Pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect”.
3. To set aside the order of punishment dated 02.07.2009, the petitioner has preferred an appeal dated 03.08.2009, before the second respondent/the Deputy Inspector General of Police. However, the second respondent without setting aside the punishment imposed by the third respondent, issued Page No.4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 a proceeding in Cr.No.B3/Appeal 18/09 dated 11.09.2009 , modified the punishment by reducing the Reduction in Pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect on the ground that though, the case registered against the petitioner was ended in acquittal, the second respondent has not come to the conclusion that he was an innocent because, the Medical Officer had deposed that he has given medical treatment to the injured persons on 31.05.2008 at Government Hospital, Cuddalore.
4. Challenging the aforesaid proceeding dated 11.09.2009, the petitioner has preferred a detailed Review Petition dated 02.11.2009, before the first respondent/the Director General of Police. Meanwhile, most of the Head Constables, who are junior to the petitioner were considered for further promotion as Special Sub-Inspector of Police on completion of ten years of service on 04.03.2010. However, the petitioner was not considered for promotion due to the punishment imposed by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7633 of 2010, before this Court to pass orders on the Review Petition dated 02.11.2009 and this Court in its 27.04.2010 directed the first respondent to dispose of the Review Petition. Page No.5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 However, the first respondent passed an order in Rc.No.210964/AP.I(2)/2009 dated 10.06.2010 by rejecting the Review Petition. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though there was no evidence or witness against the petitioner , he was found guilty of criminal charges based on the medical report and the enquiry report, which is contrary to the interest of justice. He further drew the attention of this Court to the order of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore in C.C.No.285 of 2008 dated 23.03.2009, wherein it was held that the charges against the petitioner is that on 31.05.2008 night, about 9.30 p.m., one Varadharajan and others of vadalur village came in a Car bearing TN.31.D.4665 for admitting an accident victim Sarangan in Emergency ward. The petitioner met them and demanded money and quarreled with them. Subsequently, the petitioner had assaulted the said Varadharajan and others with the company of his sons. In the incident Varadharajan 2) Suresh 3) Police Constable 2380 Ganesan were injured and admitted as inpatients at 10.20.P.M. in the Government Page No.6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 Hospital, Cuddalore and police complaint has been lodged against the petitioner and his sons.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the side of prosecution, S.Varadharajan, complainant deposed that on 31.02.2008, he went to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore in a car along with his villagers to admit his neighbour Sarangan, who got serious injuries in the accident and on the way, there was a quarrel between them and some other persons. Since, the light also went off, he was not aware, who attacked whom and who got injured. He was not aware whether any police man was also injured.
6.1. During the cross examination, P.W.1. S.Varadharajan has stated that he has not mentioned that A.Sridharan, Head Constable(petitioner) is the one who demanded money from him and he has only stated that some police man has demanded money from him and moreover, he has not stated anything that A.Sridharan, Head Constable along with his three sons have assaulted him. Further, he has not lodged any complaint against the Page No.7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 petitioner, before the New Town Police Station, Cuddalore on 31.05.2008 at 9.00 P.M. 6.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, after the trial, the petitioner was acquitted from his criminal charges by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore in C.C.No.285/2008 dated 23.03.2009 on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond doubt. Since the petitioner was acquitted from criminal charges, there is no justification in passing punishment orders. Hence, the punishment orders passed by the respondents is liable to be quashed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
(1) In the case of K.Ramalingam Vs. Superintendent of Police, Perambalur reported in (2009) 7 MLJ 578, this Court has held as follows:.
“14. In view of the above cited settled position of law on this aspect and having regard to the fact that there is no controversy about the enquiry officer's finding of guilt on the part of the petitioner, relying upon the statement given by the witnesses during the preliminary enquiry and there was no Page No.8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 occasion to cross examine the said witness during the preliminary enquiry, I am of the view that the charges framed against the petitioner cannot be said to be validly proved. Hence, the petitioner is bound to succeed in this writ petition challenging the order of dismissal passed against him”. (2) The Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. T.Ganapathy, the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
“17. In an earlier decision in W.A.No.1287 of 2008, (THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI Vs. D.MAHADEVAN), the First Bench of this Court had held that the acquittal of a person by a criminal Court, if it is based on the benefit of doubt being given in his favour, would not entitle him to be considered for being selected in service. However, if a person has been acquitted, based on no evidence, it would amount to an honourable acquittal and therefore, he would be entitled to be considered for such selection.”
8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the statements of P.Ws.6, 7, 8 and 10 will support the prosecution. Moreover, P.W.9, the Medical Officer has also deposed that he has given medical treatment to the injured persons on 31.05.2008 at Government Hospital, Cuddalore. Moreover, after the oral enquiry, the enquiry officer has held both the charges as proved on the strength of Page No.9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 deposition of witnesses P.W.6, 7, 8 and 10.
9. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that, in order to change himself, the second respondent has given one more chance to the petitioner and modified the punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect to reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect. Even though, the criminal case against the petitioner has ended in acquittal, the second respondent cannot come to the conclusion that he is an innocent.
10. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents further contended that the first respondent has rightly observed that the charges against the petitioner have been amply proved through prosecution witnesses and documentary evidences. Even though the private witnesses turned hostile during the Oral Enquiry, the police witnesses have held to what was said earlier.
11. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material Page No.10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 documents available on record.
12. In the present case on hand, the charges levelled against the petitioner are :
(1) On 31.05.2008 night, about 9.30.p.m., he has demanded bribe from one Varadharajan S/o. Sanjeevarayar.
(2) He has involved in criminal case in Cuddalore New Town Police Station in Cr.No.263/08/u/s 147, 148,341, 394, 324, 323, 506(ii) IPC, as assaulted one Varadharajan S/o. Sanjeevarayar with deadly weapon along with his three sons and Kamal of Devanampattinam.
13. The respondent based on the preliminary report filed by the enquiry officer, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and imposed a punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. Moreover, it is for the same set of charges, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.263/2008 and charge sheet was also laid in C.C.No.285/2008 under section 147, 148, 341, 394, 324, 323, 506(ii) section on the file of New Page No.11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 Town Police Station, Cuddalore.
14. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore and the trial was also conducted. Since no witness or evidence adduced against the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore acquitted the petitioner from all the criminal charges and it is the honourable acquittal and it is not based on the benefit of doubt as conducted by the respondents. Moreover, even in the cross examination, the complainant has never stated that he was assaulted by the petitioner and his sons. The petitioner has served the Police Department for thirty three years of lengthy and unblemished service except the present one and it is the first delinquency committed by the petitioner and the same was also recorded in the order passed by the first respondent dated 10.06.2010.
15. The respondents are merely relying on P.W.9, enquiry officer's evidence that he has given medical treatment to the injured persons on 31.05.2008 at Government Hospital, Cuddalore. But, it is contrary to the Page No.12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15332 of 2010 statement of the complainant that he was not even aware who was assaulted him and the Head Constable Ganesan. Hence, it is crystal clear that the criminal charge framed against the petitioner is baseless one without the evidence.
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the Judgments passed by this Court, the order passed by the third respondent in C.No.D2/P.R.42/2008 U/R 3(b) dated 02.07.2009 and the order passed in appeal by the second respondent in C.No.B3/Appeal 18/09 dated 11.09.2009 and the order passed by the first respondent in Rc.No.210964/AP.1(2)/2009 dated 10.06.2010 are hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed.
29.09.2022
vm
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Page No.13 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15332 of 2010
To:
1.The Director General of Police,
O/o The District General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 4.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Villupuram Range,
Villupuram.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
Page No.14 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15332 of 2010
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.
vm
Pre-delivery order in
W.P.No.15332 of 2010
Page No.15 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15332 of 2010
29.09.2022
Page No.16 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis