Madras High Court
J. Durairaj vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Police (L&O) on 31 August, 2016
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.08.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
Writ Petition No. 296 and 297 of 2015
--
J. Durairaj
formerly Armed Reserve P.C. 2861
Trichy City .. Petitioner in WP 296
C. Madhavan
formerly Armed Reserve P.C. 2854
Trichy City .. Petitioner in WP 297
Versus
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (L&O)
Trichy City
2. The Dy. Inspector General of Police
Trichy Range .. Respondents in both
Trichy the Writ Petitions
WP No. 296 of 2015:- This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.3681 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench with a prayer to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed in PR No.94/2001 dated 24.02.2002 and C.No.E1/261651/2001 dated 22.06.2002 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
WP No. 297 of 2015:- This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.3682 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench with a prayer to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed in PR No.93/2001 dated 24.02.2002 and C.No.E1/261651/2001 dated 22.06.2002 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. K. Venkataramani, Senior Advocate
for Mr. M. Muthappan
in both the writ petitions
For Respondents : Mr. S. Gunasekaran
Additional Government Pleader
in both the writ petitions
COMMON ORDER
In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the separate orders dated 24.02.2001 of the first respondent removing them from service which was confirmed by the second respondent by the order dated 22.06.2002.
2. The petitioners have entered into service as Grade II Police Constables in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion through the recruitment conducted by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board on 01.03.1995. Subsequently, the petitioners were transferred to Armed Reserve/Law and Order respectively. While the petitioners were serving in the Armed Reserve, Trichy City during the year 2001, the petitioners were passported on 30.08.2001 for escort duty for escorting 3 remand TADA Prisioners with instructions to produce them before the Advisory Board, Chennai on 31.08.2001. According to the petitioners, even at the time of issuing passport, they have represented to their higher officials that for escorting 3 prisioners, 2 Police personnel would not be sufficient and requested to provide adequate police personnel along with a guarded vehicle for safely escorting the prisioners, but such a request made by them was refused. While escorting the remand prisioners, the petitioners travelled in a bus and reached Chennai on 31.08.2001 and during the course of such travel, they found it very difficult to keep a watch on the three prisioners. Ar around 7.00 a.m. when the petitioners along with the remand prisioners were proceeding at Sivananda Salai near the office of the Advisory Board, one of the prisioners by name Sakthivel wanted to attend nature's call. Therefore, the petitioners' removed the handcuff in his left hand and allowed him to attend the call of the nature. At that time, the prisioner started to run away into the bushes in the Cooum river bank. Immediately, the petitioner in WP No. 297 of 2015 chased him and the petitioner in WP No. 296 of 2015 guarded the other two prisioners. After frantic efforts made by the petitioner in WP No. 296 of 2015 for nearly two hours, the prisioner Sakthivel could not be traced and therefore, the petitioners produced the remaining two prisioners before the Advisory Board in the evening. The petitioners also preferred a complaint before the Triplicane Police Station mentioning the above facts and a case in Crime No. 2082 of 2001 under Section 225 of IPC was registered.
3. According to the petitioners, in connection with the above incident, they were issued with a charge memo in PR No. 94 and 93 of 2001 under Rule 3 (b) of TNPSS (P&A) Rules. The Assistant Commissioner, Traffic (South) Range, Trichy was appointed as an enquiry officer. During the course of enquiry five witnesses were examined and 11 documentary evidence were marked. After conclusion of enquiry, the enquiry officer held that delinquency against the petitioners is proved and a proved minute dated 05.01.2002 was submitted to the disciplinary authority. By serving a copy of the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioners were asked to submit their explanation and accordingly the petitioners submitted their further explanation. Notwithstanding the same, the first respondent passed an order dated 24.02.2002 imposing punishment of removal from service. The appeal preferred thereagainst before the second respondent was rejected on 22.06.2002.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that as per the Police Standing Order, for escorting three prisioners, minimum two police personnel ought not to have been deployed but in this case, inspite of the fact that the petitioners sought for providing more police personnel, the same was rejected. Therefore, for the escape of one of the prisioiners, negligence cannot be attributed against the petitioners. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, due to inadequacy of police personnel, one of the prisioners escaped and the petitioners cannot be blamed. There is no negligence or motive attributed against the petitioners for the escape of one of the prisioiners from their custody. In the absence of any negligence or motive on the part of the petitioners, the orders removing them from service is legally not sustainable. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied on the order dated 12.04.2006 passed by this Court in WP No. 38119 of 2005 (OA No. 2866 of 2002) wherein this Court, in an identical case, held that the petitioner therein cannot be atrributed to be negligent because the structure of the accused, who had escaped, was very lean and he was able to remove the handcuff and escape. It was further held in that case that the incident had taken place at 22.15 hours and he had taken all efforts to trace the accused. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in the present case, both the respondents, in their order, have not dealt with the issue relating to negligence on the part of the petitioners and therefore, he prayed for allowing the writ petitions.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, relying on the vacate stay petition filed by the respondents, would contend that the prisioner who escaped from the custody of the petitioners has not been traced till date. As per the guidelines of Police, Head Constable Guide 1987 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, two Police Constables alone is prescribed for escort duty of three prisioners and to that effect, written instruction has been given in the passport issued to the petitioners. As per the police standing order 360 (12) the strength of Police guard for more than two prisioners is two Police Constable. The petitioners ought to have been vigilant while performing the escort duty. The petitioners permitted the prisioner to attend the call of nature at a open place. There is no provision to provide vehicle to take the remand prisioners from Trichy to Chennai. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have dealt with the above aspects in detail and rightly issued the orders of removal from service and it does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. I heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that for escorting three remand prisioners, the department ought to have deployed one or two more Police Constable during the escort duty along with the petitioners. It is further submitted that since one of the prisioner wanted to attend the natural call, his handcuff was removed and he was allowed to attend the natural call. Further, the petitioners made frantic efforts to search the escaped prisioner and also given a police complaint soon after the occurrence, therefore, they cannot be attributed with any negligence. In this context, the learned Additional Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court the police Standing Order which clearly states that only if the prisioners are more than four in number, the Department is obliged to deploy more than two Police Constables for escort duty, while so, it is clear that the deployment of the petitioners for escorting three remand prisioners is proper. Further, the petitioners were negligent in performing their escort duty inasmuch as they have permitted the prisioner to attend the call of nature at a open place which they ought to have refrained from. At any rate, while permitting the remand prisioner to attend the call of nature, the petitioners ought to have been vigilant. This Court also takes into account the fact that the escaped remand prisioner has not been traced till date. Further, before passing the order of removal from service, an enquiry was conducted and the petitioners have also subjected themselves to the enquiry proceedings. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have taken note of all the attendant facts and ultimately held that the petitioners have brought disrepute to the police force by reason of their negligence which resulted in escape of one of the remand prisioners.
7. As regards the order dated 12.04.2006 passed by this Court in WP No. 38119 of 2005 (OA No. 2866 of 2002) relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, in that case, the handcuff was not removed by the petitioner therein and due to the lean struicture of the prisioner, he relieved himself from the handcuff and escaped. Further, this Court only remanded the matter to the respondents therein for fresh consideration of the claim of the petitioner therein. The facts based on which the order dated 12.04.2006 has been passed by this Court cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In this case, the petitioners removed the handcuff of one of the prisioner to facilitate him to attend the call of nature, however, they were not vigilant enough to ensure that he did not escape from their custody. In such circumstances, I am of the view that both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have rightly come to the conclusion to impose the punishment of removal from service and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
8. At this stage, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners prayed this Court to permit the petitioners to file a Mercy Petition before the Director General of Police. It is needless to mention that it is always open to the petitioners to file a Mercy Petition before the Director General of Police and if any such petition is filed, it is open to the Director General of Police to deal with the same in accordance with law.
9. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
31.08.2016 rsh Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (L&O) Trichy City
2. The Dy. Inspector General of Police Trichy Range Trichy B. RAJENDRAN, J rsh WP Nos. 296 and 297 of 2015 31.08.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in