Madras High Court
S.Subbiah Pandian vs The Superintendent Of Police on 8 August, 2008
Author: F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla
Bench: F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
WRIT PETITION No.20668 of 2005
(O.A.No.345 of 2002)
S.Subbiah Pandian .. Petitioner
Versus
The Superintendent of Police
Tirunelveli District.
Tirunelveli. .. Respondent
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded by the respondent in PR.No.81/2001, dated 04.01.2002 and quash the same and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service and to award all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Soundara Rajan
For Respondent : Mr.N.Senthil Kumar
Government Advocate.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to challenge the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the respondent in PR.No.81/2001, dated 04.01.2002.
2. The petitioner was enlisted as Police Constable on 11.02.1971 in Armed Reserve. Subsequently he was promoted as Grade-I Constable in the year 1982 and as Head Constable in the year 1984. In June 1998 he was appointed as Special Sub Inspector of Police. The petitioner claims that he had earned 60 rewards to his credit and that he had an unblemished record of service. while he was working as Special Sub Inspector of police, at Vikramasingapuram Police Station, he was issued with a charge memo dated 11.05.2001. It contained two charges which were as under:
(i) Reprehensible conduct in having failed to perform his day today works at V.K.Puram Police Station from 16.07.2000.
(ii) Reprehensible conduct in having failed to investigate the cases in Crime Nos.202, 208, 210, 213, 223 and 228 while working at V.K.Puram Police Station.
The charges were framed under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Subordinate service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 16.02.2001. Not satisfied with the explanation, the respondent ordered for an enquiry to be held. In the enquiry, the Inspector of Police of Vikaramasingapuram police station and the Additional Superintendent of Police, Nanguneri Sub Division (incharge) were examined. In the course of the enquiry, four documents were marked in support of the charges. The first document is the petitioners report in Crime No.199/2000. The second document is a report of the first witness dated 05.01.2001 to the second witness. The third document is the report of the second witness dated 07.01.2001 to his higher authority namely, the Superintendent of Police. The fourth document is the extract of the entries made by the second witness on 04.01.2001 in the visiting book of the V.K.Puram police station. Both the witnesses were cross examined by the petitioner. Based on the above evidence, the enquiry Officer gave his findings holding that both the charges were proved. After the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 04.01.2002 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner.
3. Assailing the said order, Mr.M.S.Soundara Rajan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner were vague, that there was no evidence to support the charges, but yet the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty. The learned counsel would contend that the evidence let in in the enquiry did not relate to the charge levelled against the petitioner in the charge memo dated 11.01.2001 and therefore, the finding of guilt reported by the eqnuiry officer cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would further contend that based on the said defective finding, the respondent/disciplinary authority ought not to have imposed the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner.
4. As against the above submissions, Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned Government Pleader would contend that the documents relating to the charges against the petitioner were all furnished to the petitioner along with the communication dated 26.06.2001, that in the enquiry, the witness Nos.1 and 2 have deposed about the delinquency of the petitioner, who were fully cross examined by the petitioner, and therefore, the ultimate findings of the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges cannot be found fault with. The learned Government pleader would therefore contend that the ultimate punishment imposed by the respondent was fully justified and the same does not call for any interference.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. I find that there is a serious infirmity in the holding of the enquiry by the disciplinary authority. The first charge read along with the imputations does not disclose any definite allegation against the petitioner. The allegation contained in the first charge is that the petitioner failed to perform his day today functions as Special Sub Inspector of Police of V.K.Puram Police Station. In the imputations, what all stated was that he was working in the said station from 16.07.2001 and from that date not even once he visited the villages of Arun Dana and Papanasam, that he failed to collect the required information in order to prevent the crimes in the villages within his jurisdiction and that because of such failure, a series of crimes occurred in Kondachayyampatty on 15.05.2000. Therefore, by reading the imputations along with the first charge, it can be said that there is some definite allegation against the petitioner. But to utter dismay, I find that there was no evidence at all in support of any of the said allegations.
6. As I stated earlier, the first witness, the Inspector of Police of V.K.Puram Police Station had only stated about the misdemeanor of the petitioner in dealing with the Crime No.199 of 2000 registered under Section 420 IPC. In the Chief examination, neither any reference to the failure of the petitioner in visiting any of the villages nor was any document in support of the said allegation was placed before the enquiry officer. The first witness referred to two documents namely the petitioners report which was marked as Ex.P.1 and the report of the witness dated 05.01.2000 sent to the second witness. When the allegation against he petitioner was that he did not perform his duty as Special Sub Inspector of Police, by making periodical visits of the villages coming under the jurisdiction, in the absence of any whisper about those allegations by the witnesses, leave alone the supporting documentary evidence, it is not known how the enquiry officer reached the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner on that score was established.
7. As far as, the second charge is concerned, here again, though it refers to as many as six crime numbers in which the petitioner is stated to have not made proper investigation, none of the files relating to those crime numbers were placed before the enquiry officer. As stated earlier, neither the first witness nor the second witness have stated or referred to such improper investigation with reference to those crime numbers in the course of his carrier as Special Sub Inspector of Police, V.K.Puram Police Station. Even the second witness had only referred to two documents namely his report to the Superintendent of Police dated 07.01.2001 and the extract of his entries in the V.K.Puram police station dated 04.01.2001, which were marked as documents No.3 and 4. Merely based on the contents found in those reports of the second witness, it will be highly risky to reach any definite conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of perfunctory investigation. If the said charge of improper investigation in those crime numbers were to be accepted by any prudent man, the basic document would have been the concerned files relating to those crime numbers. Therefore, in the absence of those relevant documents, it is not known how the enquiry officer reached the conclusion that such a grave charge was proved against the petitioner. In the circumstances, there is no other go except to reject the findings of the enquiry officer as totally a perverse finding. Inasmuch as the proof of the charges levelled against the petitioner as reflected in the findings have no legal evidence to support and eventually such findings cannot be relied upon, the impugned order of the respondent in having imposed the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement based on such defective finding cannot also be sustained.
8. In the light of my above said conclusion, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. It is stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 31.01.2006. Since the impugned order of compulsory retirement is set aside, the petitioner should be deemed to have been in service from the date of such compulsory retirement till the date he reached the age of superannuation and be conferred with all consequential monetary and other benefits available to him. Writ petition stands allowed. Consequently connected MPs are closed.
ksr.
To The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District.
Tirunelveli