Madras High Court
A.Ramadass vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 20 September, 2022
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.5829 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.5829 of 2017
A.Ramadass ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police 2) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the respondent herein in G.O.2D.No.25,
Home (Police 2) Department, dated 23.01.2017 imposing a punishment of
compulsory retirement from service and quash the same and consequently
direct the respondent herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all
consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ravi Shanmugam
For Respondent : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the writ petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017
2. The petitioner joined as Grade-II Police Constable on 25.05.1988. He was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable on 25.05.1998 and as Head Constable on 25.05.2003. When the petitioner was due for promotion to the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police, he was issued with a charge memo in P.R.No.12/2011 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge against the writ petitioner was that without conducting any field enquiry and without identifying the person, who submitted an application for passport, submitted a false enquiry report, which resulted in issuance of bogus passport in the name of one Mr.Shahul Hammeed Abbas, S/o.Shahul Hammeed, Door No.6-C, Rajiv Nagar, Anaimalai. Statement of allegations and imputation of misconducts are also furnished in Annexure-II to the charge memo. Annexure-III indicates the List of documents and Annexure-IV provides List of witnesses. The petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the same, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry officer on 01.04.2011, who in turn, conducted an enquiry. The charged official was provided with an opportunity. The petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The petitioner cross-examined the prosecution https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017 witnesses and the Enquiry officer elaborately considered the documents, evidences and the deposition of the witnesses and submitted his final report, holding that the charge against the writ petitioner are held proved. The findings of the Enquiry officer was accepted by the Disciplinary authority, who in turn, provided further opportunity to the writ petitioner to submit his objections on the findings of the Enquiry officer. The petitioner submitted his further representations on 15.03.2012 and the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order on 23.01.2017, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that as per the Government guidelines, issued by the Government, Rule 3(b) charges are to be framed only if the allegations of dereliction of duty with dishonest motive is established. However, in the present case, there is no dishonest motive on the part of the writ petitioner and therefore, the framing of charges under Rule 3(b) itself is untenable. With reference to the dereliction of duty, the authorities imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which is not in commensuration with the gravity of the charges established against the writ petitioner. Thus, the punishment is to be set aside on the ground of excessiveness. The learned counsel for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017 the petitioner pleaded that the petitioner put in about twenty eight and half years (28½) of service without earning any punishments. Thus, the punishment of compulsory retirement will affect his livelihood. That apart, the dishonest motive or intention was not established against the writ petitioner. Thus, the punishment is to be set aside on the ground of disproportionality.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent objected the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that during the year 2003, the writ petitioner was working as a Circle Writer at Anaimalai Police Station, looked after the Circle office written works and as well as assisted the Inspector of Police on his field works. While he was serving at Anaimalai Circle office, Thiru.P.Murugesan was the Inspector of Police, Anaimalai Circle. During such tenure, one Mr.Shakul Hammeed Abbas, No.6-C, Rajiv Nagar, Anaimalai, had applied for a passport, which was sent to the Inspector of Police, Anaimalai Police Station through the District Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai for Police verification in passport office No RPO.No.B/26133/2003- 112/PV/W34/2003. Being a responsible Police person, it is his bounded https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017 duty to conduct field verification properly about the passport applicant and to visit his address mentioned in the passport application to verify the genuineness of particulars given by the applicant. But the delinquent writ petitioner had not visited the field and simply verified the facts submitted by the passport applicant in the station premises itself and also did not make any sincere efforts to confirm the identification of the applicant. Further, he simply put up the Police clearance certificate to the Inspector of Police Thiru.P.Murugesan, for his signature. Thiru.P.Murugesan, Inspector of Police, had issued "no objection certificate" for the issue of passport without verifying the documents furnished by the passport applicant to ensure the identification and address. Due to negligence of their bounded duty, a passport was issued to an ineligible person Sahul Hammeed Abbas, Anaimalai in No E.6308008.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader further states that one A.M.Abdul Kadar, S/o V.Mohammed Ali, Aged 40 years of Arikathuparambil house, Kumbalakod (Post), Pazhyannur, Thrissur District, Kerala State-680 587, had received an Indian Passport on his own name in the year, 1991 at passport office, Cochin. By using the above Passport, he had gone to Saudi Arabia for getting the job (Service) and in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017 the year 1993, he had come back to India. Thereafter, in the year 1998, again he had gone to Saudi Arabia for job. But that time, his employer had taken his Passport in his possession and did not return to him. Because of this, about 3 years after, on an emergency certificate, he came back to India. After coming back to India, he had lost his impound slip of emergency certificate. Because of that, by giving Rs.2400/- to one agent, he received Indian Passport in the name of Shahul Hammeed Abbas from Passport office, Chennai bearing passport No E-6308008 dated 25.8.2003 by furnishing bogus documents and also on receipt of clear police verification report from the Coimbatore District Police. He was arrested by Mumbai police for obtaining the above passport by furnishing false name, address and documents. Hence a case was registered in Maharastra State, Sahar Police Station in Cr.No.486/2010 u/s 465,468,471,419,420 and Secion 12(1) (b) of the Passport Act. Now the case is pending trial before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai in CC.No.358/PW/2011. The fact was informed to the Regional Passport Office, Chennai by the Maharashtra State Police Department for information. On the same, the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai vide his letter in C.No MAS/PC-00024/10/Policy-1, dated 03.09.2010, had requested to make discreet enquiry about how a clear Police verification https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017 report was furnished to passport office for a person who applied for passport in fictitious name and address. On receipt of this letter from Regional Passport Office, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, PEW, Coimbatore District to fix up responsibility in the above matter. Accordingly, he had reported that Tr.P.Murugesan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, formerly Inspector of Police, Anaimalai Circle and HC 468 Ramadass had sent "false field passport verification report" in respect of the aforesaid passport and both of them were responsible for the said perfunctory verification of particulars and thus gross negligence in their bounded duties. As the issue was serious one, HC 468 Ramadass of Anaimalai Police station, who conducted and submitted police verification report initially was placed under suspension in the Office D.O.No 844/2010, C.No. J1/47661/2010, dated 28.09.2010 and further his suspension was revoked with effect from 22.10.2010. Then, the Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris District was nominated as Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings in PR Nos.11/2011 u/r 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 in respect of Thiru.P.Murugesan, Deputy Superintendent of Police and 12/2011 u/r 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 in respect of Head Constable 468 Ramadass. He https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017 conducted Oral Enquiry in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules, 1955 and the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 respectively against both of the delinquents, by enquiring 9 prosecution witnesses and verifying 14 prosecution exhibits and drawn proved minutes against them. As the Government is the competent authority to pass final orders in PR under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 against the writ petitioner along with his co-delinquent, PR files were sent to Government through the Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Chennai vide his letter in C.No.207760/GB V (2)/2011, dated 27.08.2011. The Government have called for “Further Representations” from the delinquents on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, representations were also obtained and sent to Government in Chief Office letter in the even No dated 09.04.2012. Before arriving a conclusion on passing final orders in these Punishment Roll's, the Government have directed to ascertain the stage of the criminal case registered at Maharashtra State, Sahar Police station against A.M.Abdul Kadar, S/o V.Mohammed Ali, Age 40 years, Arikathuparambil house, Kumbalakod(Post), Pazhyannur, Thrissur District, Kerala State and Status of his (Accused) previous passport obtained at Regional Passport Office, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017 Cochin and the same were furnished to the Government. On considering all the facts, circumstances and seriousness of the delinquency, finally the Government have awarded the punishment of “Compulsory Retirement from Service” vide G.O.(2D).No.25, Home (Police.2) Department, dated 23.01.2017 to the writ petitioner and also to his co-delinquent Thiru.P.Murugesan, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Aggrieved over the orders of punishment of 'Compulsory Retirement'.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances reveals that the allegations proved against the writ petitioner are grave in nature. The Enquiry officer categorically considered the documents, evidences and the depositions of the witnesses and arrived a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to conduct a Field enquiry in respect of the passport applications and failed to identify the applicants, which resulted in issuance of bogus passports. By utilizing the bogus passports, the bogus passport holders travelled abroad, which would result in serious consequences and international repercussions. If any Indian citizen is allowed to travel abroad based on the false Indian passport, ramifications and implications are huge and therefore, in respect of issuance of passport, utmost care is to be taken by the authorities at the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017 time of conducting enquiry.
7. In the present case, the charge framed against the writ petitioner was held proved without any pale of doubt. The proved allegations are grave in nature. The Government passed the impugned order in the departmental disciplinary proceedings, categorically considered the allegations and formed an opinion that the allegations proved against the writ petitioner are grave in nature, warranting major penalty. Accordingly, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed, taking into consideration the length of services rendered. In such cases, in normal circumstances, the punishment of removal from service is issued by the competent authorities. However, in the present case, the Government itself considered the length of services rendered by the writ petitioner for more than 20 years and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, so as to prove the pensionary benefits to the extent applicable for compulsory retirement. Thus, the Government itself considered the quantum of punishment in an appropriate manner and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the punishment is excessive deserves no merit consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017
8. In the opinion of this Court, the punishment is reasonable with reference to the gravity of the charges proved against the writ petitioner and cannot be construed as disproportionate.
9. Thus, the order impugned issued by the respondent in G.O.2D.No.25, Home (Police 2) Department, dated 23.01.2017 stands confirmed and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The respondent is directed to settle the pensionary benefits as applicable to the compulsorily retired employees under the Rules in force as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
20.09.2022 kak Index : Yes Speaking order : Yes To The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Police 2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 12 W.P.No.5829 of 2017 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak W.P.No.5829 of 2017 20.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 12