Madras High Court
V.Thangam vs Inspector General Of Police on 29 January, 2010
Author: D. Hariparanthaman
Bench: D. Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2010
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.No.29204 of 2005
V.Thangam .. Petitioner
Versus
1.Inspector General of Police,
Chennai - 600 004.
2.Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Chengalpattu Range,
Chennai - 600 016.
3.Superintendent of Police,
Chengai East District. .. Respondents
Prayer: This writ petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.7317 of 2000 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings, C.No.A3/PR.01/2000 in P.R.No.181/99 u/r.3(b) dated 16.03.2000 and the consequential order passed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings Rc.No.126983/AP.I(2)/2000 dated 18.07.2000 and quash the same with all consequential monetary and service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. G.Bala
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam
Government Advocate
O R D E R
The Original Application in O.A.No.7317 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.
2.The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police. He served in E3 Korattur Police Station, Chennai as Sub-Inspector of Police from 26.04.1998. Before he joined in the Korattur Police Station, one Mr.Selvaraj lodged a complaint with the Korattur Police Station on 27.12.1997 and the complaint was received by one Mr.Kuberan, Head Constable and he gave a receipt bearing No.194/1997 for having received the same. The contents of the said complaint was that, the said Selvaraj was taken to the premises of one Janani Textiles in Anna Nagar and he was beaten by one Mr.Jeyaraman and others. Mr.Kuberan, the Head Constable, did not choose to register F.I.R.
3.In those circumstances, Mr.Selvaraj filed Crl.O.P.No.2351 of 1998 before this Court, praying for a direction to the Inspector of Police, Korattur Police Station and to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambattur to register his complaint dated 27.12.1997 and take suitable action immediately against Mr.Jeyaraman, Proprietor of M/s.N.P.C.Industries, Padi, Chennai 50.
4.On 07.08.1998, this Court passed an order directing the Inspector of Police, Korattur Police Station to transfer the complaint given by Mr.Selvaraj pending on the file of E-3 Korattur Police Station to B-5 Thirumangalam Police Station on or before 17.08.1998. Mr.Selvaraj was directed to appear before B-5 Thirumangalam Police Station on 19.08.1998 and proceed with the complaint in that Police Station.
5.Since the above said order of this Court was not complied with, Mr.Selvaraj filed Contempt Application No.559 of 1998 in Crl.O.P.No.2351 of 1998 on 10.09.1998. It seems that on coming to know about the filing of the Contempt Application, the Inspector of Police, E-3 Korattur Police Station directed the petitioner on 18.10.1998 to register F.I.R. based on the complaint given by Mr.Selvaraj and to transfer the same to Thirumangalam Police Station.
6.Accordingly, on 18.10.1998, the petitioner registered a case in Crime.No.1407 of 1998 under Sections 384 and 323 IPC and transferred the case files to B-5 Thirumangalam Police Station through Mr.Jeyaseelan, Grade-I Police Constable. The case file was handed over to Mr.C.Thanga Nadar, HC5992, Thirumangalam Police Station. The Inspector of Police, B-5 Thirumangalam Police Station refused to accept the same, stating that the case file should come only through proper channel, since B-5 Thirumangalam Police Station comes under Madras City Jurisdiction, while E-3 Korattur Police Station comes under Chengalpattu jurisdiction and returned the file to Mr.Jayaseelan, Grade-I Police Constable. Hence Mr.Jeyaseelan, Grade-I Police Constable, took back the papers and returned back to Korattur Police Station. Mr.Jeyaseelan handed over the files to the Inspector of Police and the facts were appraised to him. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police did not take steps for sending the file through proper channel.
7.While so, a charge memo dated 01.09.1999 under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was issued to the petitioner. Four charges were framed in the charge memo and those are extracted hereunder:
"1.Gross neglect of duty and perfunctory investigation in Korattur Police Station Cr.No.1407 of 1998 u/s.384 & 323 I.P.C. From 18.10.1998 till his relief from Korattur P.S.
2.Neglect of duty and dis-obedience of orders of the High Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.2351 of 1998.
3.Reprehensible conduct in not taking any action to transfer the case in Korattur PS Cr.No.1407 of 1998 to Thirumangalam Police Stastion and made entries in 26181/E3/99 as if it was transferred.
4.Neglect of duty in not handing over the above CD file to anybody and causing embarrassing position to officers when the applicant moved Contempt Application No.559 of 1998 in the Crl.O.P.No.2351 of 1998".
8.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted his explanation, explaining the above said facts. However, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Poonamallee Sub-Division.
9.In the enquiry, two witnesses were examined on the side of the department. They are, the Sub-Inspector of Police, E-3 Korattur Police Station at the time of enquiry and the Inspector of Police, who held the post when Crl.O.P/Contempt application was filed. On the side of the petitioner, Mr.Jeyaseelan, Grade-I Police Constable of Korattur Police Station and Mr.Thanga Nadar, Head Constable of Thirumangalam Police Station were examined. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 31.12.1999 holding that the charges were proved. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 16.03.2000 imposing the punishment of reduction in pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the same was rejected on 18.07.2000.
10.The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.7317 of 2000 (W.P.No.29204 of 2005) praying to quash the aforesaid orders of the first and second respondents.
11.Heard Mr.G.Bala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations.
12.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire disciplinary action is vitiated, since the charge memo was issued in misconception. According to him, particularly charge Nos.1 and 4 would indicate that the charges were framed, without applying mind. The charge No.1 was that there was perfunctory investigation by the petitioner in Cr.No.1407 of 1998 on the file of the E-3Korattur Police Station. The learned counsel submits that the entire facts would indicate that there was no allegation of perfunctory investigation. The whole matter is for transferring the complaint of Mr.Selvaraj, pending on the file of E-3 Korattur Police Station to B-5 Thirumangalam Police Station. Therefore, there was no question of improper investigation on the complaint given by Mr.Selvaraj by E-3 Korattur Police Station. It is further submitted that when the complaint was lodged by Mr.Selvaraj, the petitioner was not in service in Korattur Police Station and the complaint was received by one Mr.Kuberan, Head Constable. Charge No.4 was that the petitioner was negligent in his duty in not handing over the CD file to anybody and causing embarrassing position to officers when Mr.Selvaraj, moved Contempt Application No.559/1998.
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.NO.2351 of 1998 was passed on 07.08.1998, directing the Inspector of Police, Korattur Police Station to transfer the complaint of Mr.Selvaraj pending on the file of Korattur Police Station to Thirumangalam Police Station on or before 17.08.1998. The Inspector of Police categorically stated in the enquiry that he came to know about the direction of this Court only on 18.10.1998, after Mr.Selvaraj filed contempt application on 10.09.1998. Hence, Charge No.4 has no basis, was the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
14.In my considered view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded. The entire detailed narration of facts makes it very clear that nowhere the allegation that there was improper investigation on the complaint made by Mr.Selvaraj by Korattur Police Station. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when Mr.Selvaraj made complaint on 27.12.1997, the petitioner was not in service in Korattur Police Station and the complaint of Mr.Selvaraj was received by Mr.Kuberan, Head Constable only. Mr.Kuberan, admittedly, did not register F.I.R. and also did not take steps to transfer the same to the police station, which has jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Hence Mr.Selvaraj moved this Court by filing Crl.O.P.No.2351 of 1998, wherein this Court directed the Inspector of Police, Korattur Police Station to transfer the complaint of Mr.Selvaraj to Thirumanglam Police Station on or before 17.08.1998. Hence, there is no basis for the charge that the petitioner was guilty of perfunctory investigation in Crime No.1407 of 1998 on the file of Korattur Police Station from 18.10.1998. As on 18.10.1998, the matter should have been transferred to the Thirumangalam Police Station, since this Court directed that the complaint has to be transferred on or before 17.08.1998. Hence, the charge itself has no basis. But, it is unfortunate that the major portion of the report of the Enquiry Officer covers to charge No.1 and the Enquiry Office found fault with the petitioner for not properly investigating the crime, based on the complaint of Mr.Selvaraj.
15.Regarding Charge Nos.2 and 3, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the evidence of the Inspector of Korattur Police Station, he came to know the direction of this Court only on 18.10.,1998 and that he informed the petitioner to register FIR, based on the complaint of Mr.Selvaraj and to transfer the same to Thirumangalam Police Station. The learned counsel submits that it is admitted by the Inspector of Police during enquiry, that the petitioner registered FIR on 18.10.1998 itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though as the Inspector's deposition in the enquiry, he was not aware of the CD files sent to Thirumangalam Police Station, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the file was sent to Thirumangalam Police Station and the Inspector of Thirumangalam Police Station, refused to receive the same on the ground that the file should be handed over through proper channel. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after having recorded that the file was sent to Thirumangalam Police Station, the Enquiry Officer was not justified in holding that the charge Nos.2 and 3 were held as proved.
16.I am in entire agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no substance in making allegation that there was neglect of duty and dis-obedience of order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2351 of 1998, by the petitioner. Admittedly, this Court passed order on 07.08.1998 in Crl.O.P.No.2351 of 1998 directing the Inspector of Police, Korattur Police Station to transfer the complaint of Mr.Selvaraj to Thirumangalam Police Station on or before 17.08.1998. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Inspector came to know above the direction of this Court only on 18.10.1998, according to the deposition of the Inspector in the enquiry. The Inspector directed the petitioner to register the complaint and transfer the same to Thirumangalam Police Station. The Inspector admitted in enquiry that the petitioner registered FIR on 18.10.1998. Hence, charge No.2 has no basis.
17.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Thiru.Jayaseelan, Grade-I Police Constable of Korattur Police Station, deposed in the enquiry that he had taken the file to the Thirumangalam Police Station and the Inspector of Thirumangalam Police Station refused to receive the same on the ground that the file should come through proper channel, since Thirumangalam Police Station comes under Madras Jurisdiction, while Korattur Police Station comes under Chengalpattu East Jurisdiction. Mr.C.Thanga Nadar, Head Constable of Thirumangalam Police Station was examined in the enquiry and he deposed that Mr.Jayaseelan came with the relevant file on 18.10.1998 to Thirumangalam Police Station and he was taken to the Inspector and the Inspector refused to receive the file and asked him to send the same through proper channel. Mr.Jayaseelan, deposed that when he came back to Korattur Police Station, the petitioner took him to the Inspector and he apprised the Inspector about the happenings that took place in Thirumangalam Police Station. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that the petitioner could not be blamed as he took steps for registering the case and transferring the same to Thirumangalam Police Station. The Inspector alone is responsible for transmitting the same through proper channel. Hence, when the Enquiry Office himself recorded a finding that the file was sent to Thirumangalm Police Station and the Inspector of Police in Thirumangalm Police Station refused to receive the same, the charge No.3 would fail. But the Enquiry Officer proceeded further and held that the petitioner failed to establish that the file was handed over by the petitioner to the Inspector, after the file was returned by Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station. The Enquiry Officer states that when the Inspector deposed that the petitioner did not hand over the files and the petitioner deposed that the file was handed over to the Inspector, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the file was not handed over, in the absence of any evidence for handing over of file to the Inspector. The Enquiry Officer has not adduced any reason as to why he accepted the version of Inspector, when both came with different versions. Apart from the different versions of the petitioner and the Inspector, there was evidence in this regard in support of the petitioner. The is categorical evidence of Mr.Jayaseelan that he was taken by the petitioner to the Inspector, after he came from Thirumangalam Police Station and the file was handed over to the Inspector and the matter was totally apprised to the Inspector. This evidence of Mr.Jayaselan in favour of the petitioner was not at all considered by the Enquiry Office while recording the following findings in his report:
"nkw;go gpiHahsp cjtp Ma;thsh; nkw;go tHf;if gjpt[ bra;J khw;wwk; bra;a Kaw;rp bra;J mJ jpUg;gg;gl;lgpwF nkw;go tHf;F nfhg;ig ahhplKk; xg;gilf;ftpy;iy vd;gnj cz;ikahFk;/ Vbddpy; ,th; Ma;thshplk; bfhLj;jjhf Twfpwhh; Mdhy; Ma;thsh; mjid kWf;fpd;whh;/ vdnt gpiHahsp tHf;F nfhg;ig bfhul;L:h; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; xg;gilj;jhh; vd;gjw;fhf ve;j rhd;wpjGk; gpiHahspahy; nfhh;it bra;ag;gltpy;iy vdnt nkw;go Fw;wKk; cz;ik vd;W g[ydhfpwJ".
18.In fact, when he recorded the findings that the file was sent to Thirumangalm police Station through Mr.Jayaseelan, Grade-I Police Constable of Korattur police Station, the Enquiry Officer ought to have held that the petitioner could not be blamed for not taking any action to transfer the case as alleged in charge No.3.
19.In view of the above said reasons the charges were not established in the enquiry. Further as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Inspector of police, Korattur Police Station wanted to escape from the contempt proceedings initiated by Mr.Selvaraj and for the said purpose, sent the report and unfortunately the said report was made as sole basis for initiating disciplinary action against petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rules 2, 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the schedule referred to therein, the competent authority to impose the punishment is the third respondent and the appellate authority is the second respondent.
20.The Tribunal thought it fit to grant interim stay on punishment, since the punishment was not imposed by the authority mentioned in the Rules. The interim order of the Tribunal, is extracted here under:
"When the matter came up for hearing, the Government Advocate Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy, has stated that the punishment order passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police is valid, because he is the appointing authority as far as the Sub Inspectors are concerned.
2.On the other hand, the applicant's counsel has contended that the charge memo was issued by the Superintendent of police and the punishment awarded was reduction in time scale of pay by the Dy. Inspector General of Police. As per the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, the Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority to pass orders of punishment of reduction in time scale of pay. Therefore, the applicant has lost the appeal chance, as the order was passed by the appellate authority. Hence, the order has to be stayed.
3.I agree with the contention of the applicant's counsel. Hence, Admit. Notice returnable by two weeks. Private notice permitted. Interim stay. Hearing date: 18.10.2000."
21.Hence, both on merits as well as on the question of jurisdiction, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. In the result the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
29.01.2010
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vsm
To
1.Inspector General of Police,
Chennai 600 004.
2.Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Chengalpattu Range,
Chennai 600 016.
3.Superintendent of Police,
Chengai East District
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
vsm
W.P.No.29204 of 2005
29.01.2010