Madras High Court
R.Aruvagam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 March, 2023
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.7453 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.1344 of 2023
R.Aruvagam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
O/o. the Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Additional Director General of Police (L & O),
O/o. the Director General of Police (L & O),
Chennai – 4.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range, Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020
Rc.No.425540/AP II(3)/2020 dated 23.03.2020 confirming the order of
punishment passed by the 4th respondent vide proceedings
No.Na.Ka.No.A2/00212/09/2017 dated 04.02.2020 and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran,
For M/s.Ajmal Associates.
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani,
Spl. Government Pleader.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
2.The petitioner is working as Grade – I Police Constable. When the petitioner was working at Kottampatti police station during December, 2016, Crime No.522 of 2016 was registered on the file of the said police station against unknown persons for the offences under Section 379 IPC r/w. 511 IPC r/w. Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The Village Administrative Officer of Kachirayanpatti was the defacto complainant. His complaint was that unauthorized and illegal quarrying of rough stones had taken place near the licensed quarry belonging to one Solaimalai. Fencing stones and broken stones https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020 were seized from the spot and brought to Kottampatti police station. The petitioner allegedly unloaded 46 fencing stones en route. Charge to that effect was framed and charge memo was issued on 02.11.2017 by the Deputy Inspector of General of Police, Madurai Region. The petitioner offered his explanation on 23.11.2017 denying the charge. Not satisfied with the same, enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer submitted report dated 13.05.2019 holding that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. The disciplinary authority however dissented from the findings of the enquiry officer. Notice was issued on 05.12.2019 calling upon the petitioner to offer his explanation. Copy of the enquiry report was earlier served. The petitioner gave his explanation on 16.12.2019. Not satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for two years which would operate to postpone the petitioner's future increment. Questioning the said punishment imposed on him vide order dated 04.02.2020, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide order dated 23.03.2020 confirmed the decision of the disciplinary authority and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through all the averments and contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to quash the impugned orders.
4.The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit and the learned Special Government Pleader took me through its contents and submitted that the impugned orders do not call for any interference.
5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The charge against the petitioner was that when fencing stones were seized from the quarry site and handed over to the police station, the petitioner who was attached to the police station had unloaded 46 fencing stones for his personal purpose and thereby, unjustifiably enriched himself. The stand of the petitioner is that as per seizure mahazar, only 200 fencing stones were seized and all the 200 fencing stones were duly handed over to the police station and eventually before the Court. It is true that 46 fencing stones were unloaded for the petitioner's use but the said stones represented what was purchased by the petitioner from the quarry owner. The quarry owner/Solaimalai was examined as a witness and the receipt issued by him was also marked as a document. The enquiry officer had rendered a finding that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020 what was seized from the quarry site was handed over to the police station. Thus, there is no shortfall. Without any basis, the disciplinary authority had dissented from the finding of the enquiry officer. The learned counsel also pointed out that the dissenting note and the final order passed by the disciplinary authority do not go together. The disciplinary authority has gone far beyond the dissenting note. He also pointed out that the order of the appellate authority is very cryptic and does not deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner.
6.I am not persuaded by the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was Grade – I Police Constable attached to Kottampatti police station. A case of illegal quarrying was registered on 16.12.2016. The Village Administrative Officer had not indicated the number of fencing stones found at the quarry site. The Inspector of Police, Kottampatti police station was the investigation officer and he had seized the fencing stones and broken stones and got them transported. The defence of the petitioner was that the stones that were unloaded en route were actually purchased by him for valuable consideration from the quarry owner. It is beyond dispute that Crime No.522 of 2016 was registered on 16.12.2016. Though Solaimalai does not appear to be an accused, the illegal quarrying had taken place very close to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020 licensed quarry site. In fact, the name of Solaimalai was mentioned in the FIR itself, though he was not shown as accused. The defence of the petitioner is that from the said Solaimalai, the petitioner purchased 46 fencing stones on 18.12.2016. This is the categorical stand taken by the petitioner in his explanation dated 23.11.2017 submitted in response to the charge memo. It defies logic that a police constable attached to the police station which has registered a case of theft and illegal quarrying should have purchased 46 fencing stones for a sum of Rs.6,900/- from the quarry owner whose name was finding place in the FIR. What is even more strange is his explanation that he transported 46 stones purchased by him in the very same lorry which transported the seized material. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the Court to have regard to the normal human conduct.
7.The disciplinary authority rightly dissented from the findings given by the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority had correctly noted that what has been transported is not any other material but a quarried mineral. Transactions involving minerals cannot be in the manner as suggested by the petitioner. The receipt issued by the quarry owner must have TIN number and other details. Only such a receipt can be taken into account. Otherwise, the only conclusion which any quasi-judicial authority can arrive at is that it has been procured by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020 way of defence and after thought. The conduct of the petitioner is deplorable. The petitioner in his subsequent explanation also admits that at his instance, the investigation officer permitted the transportation of 46 fencing stones. It is true that in the seizure mahazar, the number of fencing stones seized from the quarry site has been shown only as 200.
8.The entire delinquency came to light only because of the chance inspection conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on the next day. When the Deputy Superintendent of Police visited Kottampatti police station the next day, he saw fencing stones stacked near a tea shop near the police station. Only thereafter, he conducted enquiry and came to know that they have been unloaded by the petitioner herein. But for the chance discovery made by the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police/Mr.Ramasamy, the issue would not have come to light at all. It appears that all the police personnel attached to Kottampatti police station were hand in glove with the petitioner herein. It is quite possible that the seizure mahazar did not mention the correct quantity seized from quarry site. The numbers had been fudged in the mahazar. The petitioner cannot take shelter behind the quantity and number mentioned in the seizure mahazar. Two facts are sufficient to nail the petitioner's guilt. Firstly, even according to him, he made the purchase from the quarry owner on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020 18.12.2016 whereas the FIR was registered on 16.12.2016 and the name of the quarry owner is referred to in the FIR itself. Secondly, the admission of the petitioner is that the stones lifted from the very same quarry site were transported in the lorry in which the seized articles were also transported.
9.I also do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the order of appellate authority is cryptic. The order of the disciplinary authority is very detailed and contains convincing reasons. When the appellate authority is agreeing with the reasons set out in the disciplinary authority's order, it is not necessary for the appellate authority to reiterate them. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/10
W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020
To:-
1.The Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
O/o. the Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Additional Director General of Police (L & O), O/o. the Director General of Police (L & O), Chennai – 4.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias W.P(MD)No.8027 of 2020 08.03.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10