Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) Causing financial loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,02,602/- for getting the B.P.Car, which was damaged due to his high handed act repaired."

3. The statement of allegation namely imputation of misconduct or misbehavior is as follows:-

" Tr. K. Antony Samy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, formerly Airport Security, now working as Deputy Superintendent of Police DCB Dindigul was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Domestic Terminal Airport with effect from 2.5.2000. The post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Domestic Terminal is very important one, invoking security of various VIPs on their visits.
On 14.11.2000, Tr. Prakash Singh Badal, Hon'ble Chief Minister of Punjab arrived at Kamarajar Domestic Terminal by IC 540. As he is one of the most highly protected VIPs in India facing threat from Muslim Fundamental Organisations, Sinkh militant organisations, he has been given 'Z' special security rating and a convoy consisting of a pilot vehicle (Car TN 01 3904) a Bullet Proof Car (TSR 3171) two escort vehicles (TN 23 C 2546 and TN 09 H 3796) were placed in the portico at 20.25 hrs. on 14.11.2000. Tr. Antony Samy had insisted on the convoy being removed from the portico. Despite protests from the Tr. Gopalakrishnan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security Branch C.I.D., that the Bullet Proof car and the other cars in the convoy have undergone thorough anti-sabotage check and hence cannot be mingled with other cars, he picked up an argument with Tr.Gopalakrishnan did not listen to reason and had not only insisted on their removal, but in a high handed manner, got the bullet proof car towed to the airport police station with the help of wrecker, thereby endangering the VIP Security. His high handed act in picking up a quarrel with a fellow officer in full public view, lowered the prestige of Tamil Nadu Police in front of other State Officials and visiting public. Because of such towing the bullet proof car No. TSR 3171 incurred damages. Thus, his act resulted in damage to the Government property besides serious breach of security in disabling the use of BP car to a very high risk category VIP. Due to his action in towing the bullet proof car to airport police station, anti-sabotage check could not be conducted once again on the Bullet Proof car and consequently the VIP had to travel in a unsafe car.

5. In this case, the only charge that remains to be considered is the charge relating to the allegation of misbehavior with fellow officer, acting in an high handed manner by removing the Bullet Proof car of the VIP on 14.11.2000 despite protest from the Deputy Superintendent of Police and causing damages to the Bullet Proof car and disabled the sanitized bullet proof car.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, while performing his duty as the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Airport Security both at the domestic and international terminal, was incharge of the maintenance of free flow traffic at the airport. The petitioner found that on 14.11.2000, a pilot vehicle (Car TN 01 3904), a Bullet Proof car (TSR 3171) and two escort vehicles (TN 23C 2546 and TN 09 H 3796) were placed in the portico at 19.35 hours whereas the VIP namely, the Chief Minister of Punjab was scheduled to arrive only at 21.30 hours i.e. 9.30 p.m. The Bullet Proof Car and the security vehicles were parked in the portico nearby the arrival gate and thereby causing great inconvenience to the free flow traffic. According to the petitioner, in addition to the Bullet Proof car, pilot car, escort cars for the above said VIP some more special category vehicles numbering nearly fifteen were parked at the same place as a group because two other VVIPs were scheduled to arrive at the terminal near about that time and on that day. They are Tr.Venkaiah Naidu, Union Minister for Rural Development,who was arrived from Delhi at 20.20 hrs. and Tr. Kakodgar, Chairman, Baba Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, who arrived at 21.15 hours. Since all the special category vehicles were parked at the portico, the petitioner has no other choice but to insist all the security officers incharge and the drivers of the VIP Cars to remove the vehicles and place them at the special zone marked for VVIPS' car infront of the airport police station. Inspite of sufficient notice and warning, except the bullet proof car TSR 3171, security cars and pilot cars, meant for the other state Chief Minister the cars belonging to other two VVIPs were removed. Since the Special Officer assigned for security of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Punjab did not allow his group of vehicles to be removed inspite of sufficient intimation and request, the petitioner arranged for towing the vehicle to the airport police station premises, a special zone so as to secure the vehicle properly. Thereafter, the Bullet Proof Car as above was brought back at the time of arrival of VVIP and the said VVIP travelled in the same Bullet Proof Car and left the airport premises by 9.50 p.m.

24. Having noticed the facts as above, let us look into the finding of the enquiry officer. The finding of the enquiry officer is at para "E" of the report is that the delinquent officer contended that he acted as per rules prescribed by airport authority in regulating vehicular traffic at the portico. The enquiry officer states that the arguments and contention of the delinquent officer is hundred percent correct technically. The enquiry officer, thereafter goes on to say that the petitioner should not work as a traffic sergeant. He should act responsibly and take care of the security needs for VIPs and VVIPs, who land and depart frequently. The officer accepts that the parking Rules apply to the portico area also but when it comes to VVIPs, they take priority over general rule as far as security is concerned. Unfortunately, the enquiry officer is unable to show any specific Rule, Regulation and Guideline which enables the cars of VVIP and "Z" category persons are entitled to special treatment and can be allowed to be parked in the portico of the airport terminal. It is unfortunate that the enquiry officer has forgotten that the regulations of the year 1982 and the guidelines issued in the year 1997 clearly set out the reasons for strict enforcement of the Regulations and guidelines in order to protect the airport premises from any untoward incident including bomb blast. The officers of the police department should be well aware that such regulations, rules or guidelines are issued for strict compliance and there can be no breach in the name of VVIP security. The safety and security of the airport, a public property cannot be compromised in the name of VVIP security. The enquiry officer unfortunately inspite of it being brought to his knowledge has failed to understand the reason behind the gazette notification of the year 1982 and the regulations issued in 1997. He has come to the erroneous conclusion that the petitioner acted in an high handed manner without any basis. It is also unfortunate to note that many of the witnesses, who have been in the traffic regulations and security wing of the police department, do not know that the portico is a "tow away" zone and is not meant for parking vehicles beyond the period prescribed. How can one expect a common man in this democratic country to obey the Rules and Regulations if such an explanation is given by the responsible officer, who breach the regulations and guidelines in the name of VIP Security.