Madras High Court
S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 October, 2023
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
W.P.No.9402 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.9402 of 2017
and
W.M.P.No.10372 of 2017
S.John Bosco
Head Constable 43758 (Chennai)
(Formerly Head Constable 2007 (Tuticorin District)
S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station
Chennai City Police, Chennai. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
3. The Director General of Police,
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore, Chennai - 4. ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1 st respondent in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/18
W.P.No.9402 of 2017
connection with the impugned order passed by him in PR No.05/2015
Rule 3(b) dated 19.05.2015 confirmed by the 2nd respondent in
C.No.C4/AP 53/2015 dated 07.07.2015 and further confirmed by the 3rd
respondent in RC No.67206/AP 2(1)/2016 dated 26.01.2017 and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in PR No.05/2015 Rule 3(b) dated 19.05.2015, confirmed by the 2 nd respondent in C.No.C4/AP 53/2015 dated 07.07.2015 and further confirmed by the 3rd respondent in RC No.67206/AP 2(1)/2016 dated 26.01.2017 and quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the service https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 as Grade II Police Constable in Madurai City Armed Reserve on 12.09.1986. After service of five years, the petitioner was posted to serve in Tuticorin District. The petitioner was upgraded as Grade I Police Constable in the year 1993 and further upgraded as Head Constable in the year 1998. The petitioner was transferred to Law & Order in 2003 and thereafter, on his request, he was transferred to Chennai City Police from Tuticorin District while serving as Head Constable in the year 2015.
(i) The petitioner served as Head Constable in Eppothumvendran Police Station, Tuticorin District, during the year 2014. While the petitioner was on duty on 18.10.2014 in the morning, one L.Subramanian appeared before the police station and gave a report stating that he is the Administrative Officer, HRD of M/s Hindu Bharat Energies (Tuticorin) Limited, situate in Eppothumvendran Village and on that day at about 11.00 AM, the Contract Workers Bhaksar Rao and Ashtosh Gupta have climbed the roof to repair the leaking asbestos sheet and fell down from there which resulted in serious injuries. The Ashtosh Gupta sustained grave injuries and another person Bhaskar Rao died due to the injuries sustained. The Special Sub-Inspector of Police Tr.Selvan (SSI) who received the complaint in the forenoon registered the case only at 23.00 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 hours (Crime No.148/2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.) inspite of the fact that it was given in the forenoon in Eppothumvendran Police Station. On knowing the same, the petitioner on the next day asked the SSI why he has not registered the case under Section 337 & 304A IPC so that the legal heirs of the deceased can get claim either under Workmen Compensation Act or from the Insurance Company, for which, the SSI got angry and beaten the petitioner which caused injuries. On the night itself, the petitioner got admitted in the Hospital for treatment to the injuries. Hence, he could not report for duty on the next day morning.
The petitioner stayed in the hospital from 21.10.2014 to 27.10.2014 and in the meanwhile, due to the absence of the petitioner in the roll call on 21.10.2014, he was marked absent.
(ii) When the petitioner was undergoing treatment in the hospital, the press reporters visited the hospital to know what has happened in the police station, but the petitioner did not give any interview. However, the reporters published certain articles mentioning about the activities of SSI, Inspector of Police and others which was widely published in Tuticorin District which resulted in the loss of image of the police personnel on account of favouritism shown to the Management, depriving justice to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 employees family and the lawful compensation available to them. The petitioner was suspended from service for the allegation of quarreling with SSI which led to the registration of criminal case against the petitioner in Crime No.149 of 2014 in Eppothumvendran Police Station under Section 294 (B) and 506 Part-I IPC on 23.10.2014 for the allegation of threatening SSI on 22.10.2014 at 22.10 in front of Eppothumvendran Police Station, thereby involved himself in a criminal case registered in Crime No.149/2014, thereby brought ill reputation to the police force.
(iii) A preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villathikulam Sub-Division and on his report dated 06.12.2014, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service (D&A) Rules in PR.No.05/2015 dated 13.01.2015. The petitioner acknowledged the charge memo on 27.01.2015 and denied the charges. The allegation against the petitioner is that he quarreled with SSI in drunken mood and attempted to assault him on 20.10.2014 at about 22.35 hours, lead to the registration of a criminal case and also absented from duty on 21.10.2014 at 07.00 hours in the Roll call, besides without permission and voluntarily https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 while undergoing treatment as inpatient in the hospital, gave interview to the Press in violation of the Service condition and thereby, brought ill reputation to the Police force among the General Public. Even before an explanation was submitted by the petitioner, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kovilpatti, was appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct an oral enquiry against the petitioner by the proceedings of the 1 st respondent on 27.02.2015.
(iv) The petitioner appeared in person for the enquiry on 06.03.2015 and obtained copies of the documents mentioned in the charge memo. The petitioner assured that he will submit his explanation after the oral enquiry was over. On the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked. The petitioner thoroughly cross examined all the witnesses and elicited answers in his favour to prove that grave injustice was done to the family members of the deceased and the injured in the accident in order to save the owner and the Administrative Officer of the factory, and when the same was questioned by the petitioner, a criminal case was registered against him and he was suspended from service and followed by that a charge memo came to be issued. The petitioner submitted his written statement of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 defence on 30.03.2015. The enquiry officer namely the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kovilpatti, has held that the charges against the petitioner has been proved and submitted a proved minute to the disciplinary authority on 22.04.2015. The petitioner was furnished with a copy of the EO report on 05.05.2015.
(v) In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance pending disposal of the criminal case registered in Crime No.149 of 2014 under Section 294(B) and 506 Part-I IPC before the competent criminal court namely CC.No.22/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam and the same was under
trial for the sole reason that the criminal case and the departmental action have arisen out of the same transaction. But the department refused to consider the same and the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry, examined the witnesses and concluded with proved minute. The disciplinary authority namely the 1st respondent without taking into consideration any of the points raised by the petitioner in his further representation held that the charges against the petitioner has been proved, and for the proven charges, imposed a punishment of stoppage of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 increment for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect by the impugned order dated 19.05.2015.
(vi) Against the punishment imposed on the petitioner, the petitioner preferred a Statutory Appeal to the 2nd respondent on 04.06.2015. The 2nd respondent namely the Appellate Authority, without taking into consideration any of the points raised by the petitioner, rejected the appeal by order dated 07.07.2015. The order of the appellate authority is a non-speaking order and it cannot be sustained, in view of the violation of Rule 6(1)(3) of the TNPSS (D & A) Rules and the same is liable to be set aside. After the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner preferred a review to the 3rd respondent who is the Head of Department.
The 3rd respondent also did not take into consideration any of the points raised by the petitioner in his review petition and rejected the same, but modified the punishment into one of stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect by the impugned order dated 26.01.2017. In the meanwhile, the criminal case that was filed against the petitioner was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, Villathikulam in CC.No.22 of 2015. In the criminal case, all the witnesses examined in the departmental enquiry were examined, and after a hot trial, the Learned Magistrate has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 held that the charges against the petitioner has not been proved and acquitted him on merit by an order dated 14.07.2015. The petitioner's review memorandum consisting of acquittal in the criminal case was not considered. Neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority nor the review authority have taken into consideration any of the points raised by the petitioner in his defence. Hence, the above writ petition has been filed.
3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the above averments stating that the contentions of the petitioner are not true. The Special Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Selvan attached to Eppothumvendran Police Station received petition from the defacto complainant and based on the contents of the petition, registered a case in Crime No.148 of 2014 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and all the documents pertaining to the case was placed before the Inspector of Police for investigation. The allegation that the Special Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Selvan showed favouritism to the owner of the factory was nothing but bald allegation which has no substances. The petitioner neither asked anything to the SSI about the case in Crime No.148 of 2014 nor suggested anything to him. Moreover, right from the beginning of the complaint being received, everything was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 done as per law so far as the case was concerned. Even for arguments sake, had the petitioner found anything wrong regarding the case, he would have informed the matter to his higher officials. But the petitioner did not choose to it, because nothing of that sort happened. The petitioner has made false allegations against his superiors like the Superintendent of Police only to cover-up his faults and the allegations are made with ulterior motive and the case against him in Crime No.149 of 2014 is genuine one.
4. It is further stated that the petitioner on 20.10.2014 at 22.35 hours using filthy languages threatened the Special Sub Inspector of Police in front of Eppothumvendran police station and left the place. In this connection, a case was registered in Crime No.149 of 2014 under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. Moreover, the petitioner was not present at 07.00 hours on 21.10.2014 for roll-call. Besides doing that, with the intention to relieve from the charges in the case in Crime No.149 of 2014, he himself got admitted in the Government Hospital at Tuticorin and lodged a false complaint against SSI. Above all, the petitioner gave interview to press violating service rules. All those things have clearly established that the petitioner has brought bad reputation to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 uniformed services. Therefore, the punishment awarded to the petitioner for the delinquency committed by him, by the 1st respondent which was subsequently confirmed by both the 2nd and 3rd respondent respectively based on the documentary evidences as well as material facts of the case is sustainable in law.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
6. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in PR No.05/2015 Rule 3(b) dated 19.05.2015, confirmed by the 2nd respondent in C.No.C4/AP 53/2015 dated 07.07.2015 and further confirmed by the 3rd respondent in RC No.67206/AP 2(1)/2016 dated 26.01.2017, is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
7. The charges framed against the petitioner are as follows:
(i) On 20.10.2014 at 22.35 hours, the petitioner used abusive and filthy languages against the Special Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Selvan and threatened him in front of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 Eppothumvendran Police Station and such kind of misbehaviour on the part of the petitioner has spoiled the reputation of uniformed service in the eyes of public, and therefore, a case was registered against him in Crime No.149 of 2014 under Section 294(b) and 506(i) IPC.
(ii) Further, the petitioner was absent for the roll-call on 21.10.2014 at 07.00 hours in the morning, and without getting prior permission, he himself got admitted in the Government Hospital, and against the service rules, he gave interview to Tamil Daily 'Dina Malar', also in order to cover up his fault, he has levelled false allegations against the Special Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Selven and this act of the petitioner spoiled the reputation of the police among the public and it is highly condemnable.
8. The contention of the petitioner is that the order passed by the 1 st respondent is non-reasoned and the disciplinary authority has not even considered the various points raised by the petitioner. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has produced documentary evidence to show that there is total improbability in the prosecution case with reference to the time during which the delinquency is said to have taken place and the petitioner used filthy language, but none of the points raised https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 has been considered by the Appellate authority before passing the order. Further, when the petitioner has specifically alleged that there is grave injustice done to the Contract Labours by registering a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C, which cannot be applied to a case of accident by negligence, the 3rd respondent did not take into consideration the paucity of evidence in the departmental enquiry, besides failed to take into consideration the Judgment of the Criminal Court in a manner known to law, before rejecting the appeal after modifying the punishment into one of stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect.
9. On the side of the respondents, it has been contended that the points raised by the petitioner were already considered by the authorities and only after considering the same, the above punishment was awarded to the petitioner. It has been further contended that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity during the enquiry and the witnesses who were examined have proved the case of the prosecution. It has also been contended that the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years was subsequently modified into 2 years with cumulative effect in the review filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent and therefore sought for dismissal of this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017
10. On perusal of the impugned order passed in the Review Petition, it is seen that the observations made in the criminal case against the petitioner on 14.07.2015 in C.C.No.22 of 2015 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate at Vilathikulam were not properly appreciated by the 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court. The Learned Judicial Magistrate has passed a detailed order after taking into consideration the case of the petitioner, wherein, it is seen that, totally 9 witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution. All the witnesses have narrated the facts that had occurred on 20.10.2014 in Eppothumvendran Police Station, wherein, certain discrepancies have been found as regards the allegation of using vulgar words and threatened made by the petitioner against the complainant. In the complaint petition, the word uttered by the petitioner was not specified by the complainant, but the witnesses have specified the same while giving evidence, which has arisen a doubt in the statement of the witnesses.
11. It is also seen that, on the date of alleged occurrence, the complainant has assaulted the petitioner which caused injuries and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 petitioner got admitted in the hospital. The complainant himself has admitted the same in his evidence. Further, the witnesses namely RW4 and RW9 examined on the side of the prosecution have admitted the said fact while giving evidence. RW4 has stated in his evidence that the petitioner was in-patient in the hospital. Further, RW9 has stated that, since he was informed that the complaint given by the petitioner was false one, he has closed the complaint. It is further seen that none of the document was produced on the side of the prosecution to show whether action was taken and FIR was registered on the complaint given by the petitioner with regard to non-registering the F.I.R by the Special Sub- Inspector of Police, Selvan (SSI) and also none of the document was produced with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner on the side of the prosecution. It is moreover seen that, since the prosecution has failed to substantiate its case, the Learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner on merit by order dated 14.07.2015. The above stated facts were not taken into consideration by the 3rd respondent while rejecting the review petition and therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in PR No.05/2015 Rule 3(b) dated 19.05.2015 is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017
12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the 1st respondent in PR No.05/2015 Rule 3(b) is quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.10.2023 raja Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.
3. The Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai - 4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J., raja W.P.No.9402 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.10372 of 2017 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/18 W.P.No.9402 of 2017 30.10.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/18