Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Facts of the case:

18.The petitioner herein was working as a Head Constable at Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station in Kancheepuram District. By the proceedings of the then Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, the petitioner was transferred from Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station to Chengalpattu Town Police Station.

19.Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the ground that after the order of transfer passed by the then Superintendent of Police, he went to his Office and used abusive language for ordering his transfer. As per the said proceedings, the alleged occurrence has happened on 06.07.2004. Action has been initiated based upon an anonymous letter sent to the then Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Vishnukanchi was directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner. The preliminary report indicated that a case has been made against the petitioner. It was approved by the then Superintendent of Police. He directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu, to frame charges. Charges have been framed which was approved by the then Superintendent of Police. The petitioner was given 15 days time from the date of the receipt of the charge memo to give a reply to the charges. The charge memo was served on the petitioner on 23.03.2005. However, the oral enquiry was assigned even before receiving the reply from the petitioner, by appointing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mammallapuram as the Enquiry Officer by the then Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, the petitioner has come forward to file this Writ Petition, challenging the charge memo dated 23.03.2005.

20.Heard Shri.K.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition as well as the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.29595 of 2005 and the relevant documents including the records produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader.

21.The facts involved in the present case on hand are not in dispute. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the ground that, on 06.07.2004 he abused the then Superintendent of Police. No action was taken by the then Superintendent of Police for the alleged abuse said to have been uttered by the petitioner. However, strangely action was sought to be taken by the very same Superintendent of Police against whom the petitioner was alleged to have used abusive language based upon an anonymous letter. The then Superintendent of Police directed a preliminary enquiry to be done by the Inspector of Police under whose jurisdiction the petitioner was not working. The preliminary enquiry report was approved by the then Superintendent of Police. He then appointed the District Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu to frame the charges. The charge memo was also approved by the then Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram on 11.02.2005. It was served on the petitioner on 23.03.2005. But an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 30.03.2005 by the then Superintendent of Police even before the expiry of time limit given to the petitioner to give his reply.

22.The above said facts would demonstrate that the then Superintendent of Police has been involved in the alleged occurrence. Admittedly, the charge against the petitioner is that he used abusive language by deframing the Superintendent of Police. As discussed above, no complaint was given and proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the then Superintendent of Police. However, it is he who directed the Inspector of Police, Vishnukanchi to conduct a preliminary enquiry. It is also to be seen from the counter affidavit filed in the earlier proceedings, the then Superintendent of Police approved the preliminary enquiry report. Thereafter, he directed the District Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu to frame the charges. The charge memo was also approved by him. The petitioner was asked to give explanation to the charge memo. Even before the expiry of the time limit given, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The above said facts would clearly indicate that, the then Superintendent of Police being a party to the alleged occurrence was also involved in the decision making process.