Madras High Court
R. Kannan vs The Director General Of Police on 6 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 240
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: A.P.Sahi, Subramonium Prasad
W.A.No. 338 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.03.2020
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.A.P.SAHI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.A.No338 Of 2020
R. Kannan .. Appellant
-vs-
1. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
West Zone, St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai – 600 016.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Poonamallee Range,
Poonamallee, Chennai 56
.. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order passed in W.P.No.15585 of 2017 dated 21.06.2017.
Page 1 of 10
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No. 338 of 2020
For appellant : Mr.S.Selvathirumurugan
For respondents : Mr.V. Jayaprakash Narayanan
: Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
( Delivered by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,J.,) The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ appeal challenges the order dated 21.06.2017 in W.P.No.15585 of 2017, which was filed by the appellant, for quashing the order dated 10.12.2016 imposing a penalty of postponement of increment for two years with cumulative effect.
2. The facts of the case is that the appellant / petitioner is a Police Officer. His wife has entered into a Private Chit Fund (Kitty). It is an allegation that she took money out the Chit, but has not paid the instalments, resulting in registration of a criminal case against the appellant / petitioner and his wife for the offence punishable under sections 420, 294 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner filed a petition Page 2 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No. 338 of 2020 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the First Information Report. The First Information Report was quashed by order dated 03.02.2011. The petitioner's wife also filed a petition for quashing the charge sheet and the criminal case has been quashed by this Court by order dated 16.10.2014, wherein, this Court found that no offence has been made against the petitioner's wife.
3. Domestic enquiry proceeded against the appellant / petitioner on the basis of the statements made by some witnesses who have stated that the appellant / petitioner was aware that his wife had borrowed money from chit fund and has not returned the same and that the appellant / petitioner threatened the witnesses that his wife will not pay the amount and they can do whatever they can do. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges have been proved against the appellant / petitioner and based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect.
Page 3 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No. 338 of 2020
4. The order imposing punishment has been challenged in W.P.No.15585 of 2017. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition stating that the standard of proof adopted before the domestic enquiry is only on the principle of “preponderance of probabilities”, whereas, the standard of proof before the criminal Court is on the principle of “proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt.” The learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has filed the present appeal.
5. The evidence in both the criminal case and the domestic enquiry are identical and based on the same set of facts. The appellant / writ petitioner filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6074 and 6075 of 2011 for quashing the first information report dated 16.02.2010. The first information report was quashed by order dated 03.02.2011. The learned Single Judge, while quashing the first information report found that the allegations made in the first information report even taken on a bare reading do not constitute any offence. Paragraph 8 of the order dated 03.02.2011 reads as under:
Page 4 of 10
http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No. 338 of 2020 “ 8. If the allegations made in the First Information Report even taken on a bearing reading do not constitute any offence then, the Court should interfere and quash such proceedings. On perusal of the complaint it is evident that there is no allegation to implicate this petitioner who is the police constable. It is a fit case to interfere and the First Information Report in Crime No.13/2020 on the file of first respondent is quashed as far as the petitioner alone is concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
6. Charge Sheet was filed against the appellant / petitioner's wife who filed Crl.R.C No.1201 of 2013 for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.302 of 2012.
7. The learned Single Judge, after going through the materials found that there is no material whatsoever to show that any amount was due and payable from the appellant / writ petitioner's wife and therefore offence cannot be made out. Paragraph-7 of the order is extracted hereunder:-
Page 5 of 10
http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No. 338 of 2020 “ 7. There is no material whatsoever to show that the complainant has paid money to the petitioner. No written receipts have been produced to support the allegation of the petitioner having joined a chit, received money and of having not repaid the same.
Even according to the First Information Report, the petitioner has paid monthly instalments upto Novembe 2009 and only thereafter, the petitioner has failed to repay.
As rightly contended by learned counsel for petitioner in the absence of the element of deception at inception, no offence u/s 420 IPC would be attracted. As regards offence u/s 294(b) IPC, 161(3) Cr.P.C statements inform that allegations of verbal abuse are made only against the petitioner's husband. The proceedings against him stands quashed under orders of this Court passed in Crl.O.P.No.5779 of 2010 dated Page 6 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No. 338 of 2020 03.02.2011. There absolutely is no material to support the allegations levelled against the petitioner. In the circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner would be unjustified.
This Criminal Revision stands
allowed. The proceedings in
C.C.No.302 of 2012 on the file of
learned Judicial Magistrate I,
Poonamallee, is quashed.”
8. In view of the fact that both husband and wife have been exonerated, the issue is as to whether only on the basis of statement of certain witnesses, without any material to substantiate the statements whatsoever, can the disciplinary authority come to a different conclusion even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities? The answer is no.
9. We find that the case against the petitioner would stand not even stand the test of preponderance of probabilities. The order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the order dated 27.11.2011 awarding punishment to the appellant / writ petitioner is Page 7 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No. 338 of 2020 also not sustainable.
10. The impugned order dated 21.06.2017 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. However, we would note that the appellant / writ petitioner being a Police Officer, must be cautious himself and responsible in future and should not take undue advantage of Uniform even in private life. No costs.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.P., J.) 06.03.2020 Index : Yes/No sr Page 8 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No. 338 of 2020 To
1. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Joint Commissioner of Police, West Zone, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Poonamallee Range, Poonamallee, Chennai 56 Page 9 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No. 338 of 2020 The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Subramonium Prasad, J.
sr W.A.No.338 of 2020 06.03.2020 Page 10 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in