Madras High Court
K.Ravi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 13 February, 2013
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.02.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
Writ Petition No.37717 of 2005
K.Ravi .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamilnadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Home (Police-IV) Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-9
2. The Director General of Police
Kamarajar Salai
Mylapore
Chennai-4
3. The Inspector General of Police
Law and Order
Mylapore
Chennai-4
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Vellore Range
Vellore
5. The Superintendent of Police
District Police Office
Vellore, Vellore District .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned orders passed by the fifth respondent in H1(3)/ P.R.124/98 u/r 3(b) dated 20.6.1999 and the proceedings of the fourth respondent passed in C.No.B2 A.P.109/99 dated 20.8.1999 and the proceedings of the second respondent passed in Rc.No.65409/AP2(2)/2001 dated 21.5.2001 and the proceedings of the first respondent passed in G.O.(2D) No.172 Home (Police-IV) Department dated 26.5.2003 and quash the same with the consequential direction, directing the respondents to confer all the consequential benefits like seniority and promotion with effect from the date of promotion given to his juniors with all attendant and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner :: Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel for
Mr.V.Ravikumar
For Respondents :: Mr.N.Srinivasan
Addl. Government Pleader
for R1 to R5
ORDER
The present writ petition was filed in the year 2005 challenging the impugned proceedings passed by the fifth respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Vellore dated 20.6.99, as modified by the fourth respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police in his proceedings dated 20.8.99 and confirmed by the second respondent, the Director General of Police in his proceedings dated 21.5.2001, to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to confer all the consequential benefits like seniority and promotion with effect from the date of promotion given to his juniors.
2. The petitioner Mr.K.Ravi, who was directly recruited as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1997, unfortunately suffered with the departmental proceedings at the hands of the fourth respondent for the following charges:
"(i) Dereliction of duty in absenting himself from duty from 25.05.1996 to 29.05.1996 and from 07.07.1996 to 23.07.1996 without leave or permission and failure to send intimation about his whereabouts and returning to duty on 30.05.1996 and 23.07.1996 respectively with medical certificates later for the period without any explanation.
(ii) Indisciplinary conduct in absenting himself from duty without any leave or permission from 10.00 hrs on 31.08.1996 till 02.09.1996 F.N. and from 02.09.1996 A.N. to 05.09.1996 the date on which he sent medical certificate for the M.L. Upto 08.10.1996 again absenting himself from duty without leave or permission from 06.12.1996 till 03.02.1997 on which date he sent a medical certificate later to cover the period of absence.
(iii) Neglect of duty and disobedience of order of the Superintendent of Police in not attending the duties for the I phase of the Panchayat Election during 10/1996 despite of specific order received by him on 03.10.1996.
(iv) Neglect of duty and indifference to the instructions of Dy.Superintendent of Police, Vaniyambadi in not registering cases of cognizable offence on 11 petitions presented by the complainant on various dates between 18.06.1996 and 23.09.1996, failed to verify the investigations on those cases registered by H.C.2468/NAA, as per the instructions of the Dy.Superintendent of Police, Vaniyambadi having failed to take up investigation in the cases of Alangayam P.S. Cr.No.300/96 u/s 324, 323, 294(b) IPC and 307/96 u/s 148, 324, 323 IPC, reported on 08.09.1996 but registered only on 13.11.1996 though instructions were issued on 26.09.1996 by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Vaniyambadi."
3. On the above charges, a charge memo was issued and the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation denying all the charges. However, the disciplinary authority, finding that his explanations were not satisfactory, called upon him to appear for an enquiry before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, on completion of enquiry, found him guilty of all the charges and after issuance of the second show cause notice, though he submitted his detailed explanation, the disciplinary authority, finding no sufficient cause for disagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect by order dated 20.6.99. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent, considering the fact that the leave on medical grounds availed by the petitioner was covered by due medical certificates issued by the authorised medical attendants and that he was already dealt with in P.R.117/97 under Rule 3(b) for his absence from 6.12.96 to 3.2.97, thought it fit to modify the punishment to that of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Not satisfied with that order, the petitioner went before the Director General of Police, the second respondent and he also confirmed the order passed by the fourth respondent, as a result, the present writ petition came up before this Court.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner heavily contended before this Court that the petitioner was serving only as Sub Inspector of Police and he was on medical leave at the relevant period when the alleged instructions were given on 3.10.96 i.e., when the petitioner was on medical leave from 2.9.96 to 8.10.96, he was directed to report for duty on 3.10.96 in connection with the Panchayat elections scheduled to be conducted in Phase-I. According to the learned senior counsel, when the petitioner was not fit to join duty, it is absolutely impossible for the respondents to contend that in spite of the directions issued by the respondents, the petitioner failed to report for duty, when he was already on medical leave for the period from 2.9.96 to 8.10.96. Even this aspect was not properly considered by the enquiry officer and also by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, insofar as the finding given by the enquiry officer and as confirmed by the disciplinary authority in respect of charge no.3, no specific conclusion has been arrived at by the appellate authority or by the second respondent. On this score, the learned senior counsel pleaded for interference with the impugned orders.
5. The learned senior counsel further pleaded that though the fourth respondent interfered with the quantum of punishment from stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect to one of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect by order dated 20.8.99, the petitioner has suffered great prejudice for the loss of promotions in almost four panels, hence, he prayed for quashing the impugned orders. In support of his submissions, he also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Krushnakant B.Parmar v. Union of India and another, (2012) 3 SCC 178 for the proposition that unless the respondents are clear on evidence that the unauthorised absence from duty amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant, the said Government servant cannot be imposed with any major punishment like the one suffered by the petitioner. In the present case, he pleaded that the respondents have not decided on the wilful absence said to have been committed by the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
6. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, relying upon the detailed counter affidavit, submitted that though the petitioner is serving in the disciplined police force for a period of 12 years, he has suffered almost eight punishments, which shows that he is a habitual absentee. Only for the frequent punishments suffered by the petitioner, his name was not considered for the drawal of 'C' list of Sub Inspector of Police, fit for promotion as Inspector of Police, during the years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. When the charge sheet with specific allegations shows as to how the petitioner committed delinquency in four counts, he was given fullest opportunity to defend his case. But the petitioner was unable to explain satisfactorily his case before the enquiry officer. Therefore, on completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer found him guilty and ultimately the disciplinary authority, accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect by order dated 20.6.96. Aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the fourth respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range and on consideration of the case of the petitioner, the fourth respondent thought it fit to modify the punishment to one of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Even that order was taken up before the second respondent, the Director General of Police, who also confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, it is not a fit case for this Court to interfere with the impugned orders, when the petitioner has suffered eight punishments in a period of 12 years service.
7. While agreeing with the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court also mentions two other significant facts. Firstly, the petitioner belongs to disciplined force. While so, even though he was on medical leave for the period from 2.9.96 to 8.10.96, when he was called upon to join duty at the verge of completing his medical leave, namely, five days before the expiry of medical leave, the petitioner should have reported for duty by accepting the call of the fifth respondent-Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, as he was required for bandobust duty for the first phase of panchayat elections scheduled to be conducted then. When he had disobeyed the national call, he cannot plead that he should not be disturbed when he was having five more days to complete his medical leave, for the reason that he belongs to the disciplined force. Secondly, the petitioner repeatedly suffered eight punishments within a span of 12 years service, three of the punishments suffered were for his proved desertion and two for his unauthorised absence. Despite the fact that he suffered eight punishments, with magnanimity, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the fourth respondent has shown more indulgence by modifying the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect into one of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect for the reasons best known to him. Having enjoyed the modification of punishment, this Court is not inclined to show any more indulgence to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
ss To
1. The Secretary to Government Home (Police-IV) Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2. The Director General of Police Kamarajar Salai Mylapore Chennai 600 004
3. The Inspector General of Police Law and Order Mylapore Chennai 600 004
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Vellore Range Vellore
5. The Superintendent of Police District Police Office Vellore Vellore District