Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Shanmugam vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 9 February, 2024
1 . OA/193/2015 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAL BENCH Nos OO1 OL Dated Friday the 09" day of February Two Thousand Twenty Four CORUM: HON'BLE MR. MANISH GARG, MEMBER(J) & ; HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER(A) R. Shanmugam, S/o. Rajaram, No. 50, Mariamman Koil Street, T. N. Palayam, Puducherry. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s V. Ajayakumar Vs 1. Union of India rep. by The Government of Puducherry, through the Director General of Police, Police Department, Puducherry. 2. Superintendent of Police (Head Quarters}, Police Department, Puducherry. ... Respondents By Advocate Mr. M. Syed Mustafa LM 2 OA/193/2015 ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J)} By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records of the respondents with No. OSD/DE- 1/24-11?DGP/2013, dated 11.09.2014, and with No. OSD/DE-1/24-12/DGP/2013, dated 26.12.2014, and to quash the same and to pass such other or further orders in the interest of justice and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste of Puducherry. He joined the service on 01.06.2004. He was entitled to get promotion to the post of Inspector. One Maheswari filed a complaint before the Thavalaikuppam Police Station on 7.9.2013, stating that the applicant, along with some other person, has tried to mandhandle her on the road, among other allegations. Another complaint was made on 08.09.2013, stating that they were having physical relationship and other concocted stories and, as a result, an F.L.R. was filed. The applicant's brothers and sister were also included in the complaint. As the difference between them were over, the complainant withdrew the said complaint and stated during mediation proceedings that the complaint was fake and incorrect and so a compromise report was made. The applicant filed Cri. O.P. No.4629 and 4630 of 2014 and the Hon'ble High Court, based on the above report, quashed the F.I.R. in the two cases and both of them got married and are leading a peaceful life togerther. The respondent proceedings based on the old complaint, even though the said complaints were withdrawn and were without any grounds. it is also alleged that the respondent issued the said charge memos with some ulterior motive and to stop the applicant from getting further
3 OA/193/2015 promotions, for which this Original Application is filed.
3. ° The learned Counsel for the applicant draws reference to the Charge Memo, dated 11.09.2014, which is extracted as under:
4, "That on 08.09.2013 a case in Crime No. 10/2013 u/s 376, 417, 420, 506 fi}! IPC was registered against R. Shanmugam, SI of Police while working as SHO of Kirumampakkam P.S. Puducherry based on the complaint of one Maheswari D/o Sivapragasam to the effect that SI, Shanmugam had got sexual intercourse with her several times by giving enticement words that he would marry her. While urging for marriage, he assured her that he would marry her after his younger sister's marriage. In the meanwhile, on 02.09.2013, SI of Police, Shanmugam had secretly made engagement for marriage with another girl namely Selvarani of Varakkalpattu Odai following which, the complainant was criminally intimidated by him.
As such, the acts of moral turpitude and involvement of criminal case by R Shamugam, SI of Police show his grave misconduct, indiscipline, untrustworthiness amounting to violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 and thereby he tarnished the image of Police force among general public. Thus, he proves himself to be unbecoming of a member of the Law enforcing Organization."
Yet another memo, dated 26.12.2014, has been issued which is extracted as under:
"That on OF 090.2013 at 08.30 hrs, a case in Cr No, 83/2013 u/s 506 (1) IPC r/w 34 IPC was registered at Thavalakuppam PS based on the written complaint of one S. Maheswari of Gonmedu, Puducherry to the effect that on 07.09.2013 at O7 45 hrs (i) R. Janagiraman, HC (Gr, i) Driver at MT Unit, Police Department, Puducherry (2) R Shaninugam SI and (3) R. Chandirasegaran who is working as Head Constable NO, 051135 at IRBn, Puducherry joined together in furtherance of common intention and criminally intimidated the complainant with dire consequences due to family dispute.
issued a charge memo for taking disciplinary
4 OA/193/2015 As such, the act of involvement of criminal case by (1) R Janagiraman, HC (Gr.f} Driver (2) R Shanmugam, ST and {3) B. Chandirasegaran, HC IRBn. 051135, shows their grave misconduct. indiscipline amounting to violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 Thus, they prove themselves to be unbecoming of members of Disciplined Police force."
5. He draws our attention to a settlement at the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, i.e., Mediation Agreement, dated 10.09.2014, in Crl.OP.Nos.4629&4630/2014 case. Based on the aforesaid, the Hon. High Court disposed of the Crl.OP.Nos.4629&4630/2014, thereby quashing both the F.1.R.s, vide order, dated 24.09.2014. The same is extracted as under:
"In view of such compromise effected between the parties,this Court feels that there is no justification to allow the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, as there is no chance of conviction against petitioners at later stage. Hence, it is a fit case, wherein, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners can be quashed on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties in the Mediation.
In the result, both the criminal original petitions are allowed by quashing the proceedings in Cr.Nos.83 and 10 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent/ Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Villianur, Puducherry. The mediation report and agreement shall form part of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
6. He would contend that the FIR filed against the applicant as well as the charges levelled against him are one and the same. He further states that pursuant to the said order of the Hon. High Court, the applicant is happily married to the complainant, who had preferred the FIRs. it is settled law that when the criminal charges as well as charge memos are identical, the Disciplinary Proceedings need not be continued. He would further rely upon the averment made in the reply statement filed by the respondents for ready reference to the counter affidavit.
3 OA/193/2015 The same is extracted as under:
"The respondent submits that on 07.09.2013 at 08.30 hours, a case in Cr.No.83/2013 u/s 506 (i) IPC r/w 34 IPC was registered at ThavalakuppamPS against 1). R. Janakiraman, HC (Driver) Gr, 2} The applicant, R. Shanmugam, SI of Police and (3) R. Chandrasekaran, HC {IRBn) 051135 bases on the written complaint of one Maheswari D/o Sivaprakasam, Gorimedu, Puducherry stating that since the last seven years, she and her Aunt's son namely R. Shanmugam{applicant} who is working as SI! of Police in Puducherry Police loved each other. Though she urged him to get marriage, he defused te marry her. At his "juncture, on 02.09 2013 the applicant R. Shanmugam, Sl of Police had secretly made engagement for marriage with another girl namely Selvarani of Varakkalpattuodai. Hence, on 07.09 2013 she went to the house of Selvarani, at VarakalpattuOdai in order ta explain the attitude of the applicant and she was scolded by the father of Selvarani. On her returning at 07 45 hrs at Cuddalore Main Road, Thavalakuppam PS, Puducherry. 1} R. Janagiraman, HC (Gr.Hl) Driver, (2} The applicant, R. Shanmugam, SI of Police and (3) R. Chandrasegaran, HC IRB nalongwith some other person followed her in @ car shouted loudly "Kill You, Stop Your Scooty". She escaped and entered to Thavalakuppam PS and gave a written complaint against them narrating their Criminal intimidation. Based on the complaint, the Station House Officer, Thavalakuppam PS, on G7.09.2013 at 08.30 hrs, registered a case in crime No.83/2013 u/s 506 {I} IPC r/w 34 iPCinfurtherence of common intention and criminally intimidated the complainant with dire consequences due to family. dispute. Further, it had also been learnt that on 14.09.2013 the Government Servants of Police Department who were involved in this case, were granted anticipatory bail vide Cr.MP. No. 1136/2013 by the Hon'ble Prinicipal Sessions Judge, Puducherry. On having produced sureties by them, they were released by the Hon'ble Court. Based on the report of Station House Officer, Thavilakuppam PS, they were placed under suspension with immediate effect vide Order dated 03.10.2014.
The respondent submits that a report has also been received jrom Supdt. of Police (South). Puducherry vide his Letter. No.3193/SPS/2013, dated 10.09.2013 which was submitted by ST of Police, All Women PS, Villianur, Puducherry against the applicant reporting that on 08.09.2013 at 02.00 hrs one Maheswari (26), D/o Sivaprakasam, No.E/, 133, Police Quarters, Shanmugapuram, Gorimedu, Puducherry came to All Women Police Station, Villianur and lodged a written complaint that she is residing in the above said address alongwith her parents. Her father is working as Head Constable in Puducherry Police. Since the last seven years she and her Aunt's son namely Shanmugam {applicant} who is working as SI of Police in Puducherry Police loved each other. He had sexual intercourse with her several times during that period by giving enticement words that he would marry her. Though she urged him to get marriage, he replied that he would marry after his younger sister's marriage Even after the sister's marriage, he refused to marry her. During the month of July 2013, she repeatedly urged her uncle (the applicant) to marry her, he entirely refused, At this juncture, on 02.09.2013, R. 6 OA/193/2015 Shanmugam (the applicant) Si of Police had secretly made engagement for marriage with another girl namely Selvarani. Hence, on 07. 09.2013 at about 07 45 hrs while she went to the residence of the said Selvarani of VarakkalpattuOdai in order to explain the attitude of the applicant, the father of Selvarani, without hearing her words, scolded her and sent out from there. On her returning, SI shanmugam and his family members had criminally intimidated her. Based on the com plaint received from Maheswar, a case in Cr No. 10/2013 u/s 376, 417, 420, 506 (i) IPC was registered by the AWPS, Villianur, Puducherry.
The Respondent submits that based on the report of All Women Police Station, Villianur, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order No.OSD/DE-I/ 24-11/DGP/2013, dated 11.12.2013 under rule 2 of PPSS (D&A) Rules 1968 read with 10 (2) of CCS {CCA} Rules 1965. Later, based on the report of SHO, Thavalakuppam PS, Puducherry (1) R. Shanmugam (Applicant), SI of Police was placed again under suspension under rule 10 (5} (b} af CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, {2} HC (Gr. Driver R. Janagiraman, MT Unit, Puducherry and (3) HC 051135 R. Chaandrasekaran, IRBN Unit were placed under suspension with immediate effect under rule 10 {2} of CCS {CCA} Rules 1965 vide order No.OSD/DE-1/24-12/DGP/2013, dt.03.10.2014 following which, Thiru B. Ranganathan, Inspector of Police was directed to conduct preliminary enquiries on their Criminal cases involvement in Thavalakuppam PS and AWPS, Villianur vide Order, dated 10.04.2014 and dated 17.02.2014. They were reinstated into service vide Order, dated 26.11.2014 considering their representation dated 10.10.2014 in which, it had been stated that they approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras and the case was referred for mediation before the Tamil Nadu mediation and counselling centre, High Court, Madras. The mediation was held and a report of mediation dated 10,04,2014 alongwith mediation agreement was submitted before the Hon'ble Court, where the defacto complainant Maheswari agreed to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Court ordered to quash the FIR in Cr. NO.83/2013 of Thavalakuppam PS., Puducherry.
7. Having heard the counsels for the paries and perused the records, we find that since the criminal charges in the criminal proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings are based on the same set of charges, the Disciplinary Proceedings need not he conducted, as held by the Hon. Apex Court. Hence, the present proceedings cannot continue and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned charge memos are liable to be quashed, and they are quashed, accordingly.
7 OA/193/2015
8. The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms, in accordance with law. All pending MAs are also disposed of. No order as to costs.