IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 26-06-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.6558 of 2006 M.Shanmugasundaram .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, A.R.II, Chennai City Police, Egmore, Chennai-8. 2.The Inspector of Police, E-Sec. City Police Office, A.R. Chennai-2. .. Respondents. Prayer: Original Application No.249 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.6558 of 2006, seeking for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order in PR.No.418/PR2(1)/2000, dated 23.11.2000, served on 21.12.2000, and quash the same and grant him such other further relief. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani for Mr.K.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for and quash the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 23.11.2000, made in PR.No.418/PR2(1)/2000, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years, without cumulative effect.
3. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered the service as a Grade-II Police constable of the Chennai City Police, on 14.11.1976. He was promoted as a Head Constable, on 13.5.1984. Later, he was further promoted as a Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, on 1.1.1998. While so, the Director General of Police had issued a memorandum, dated 12.5.2000, to convene the Range Promotion Board for preparation of `C’ list of Head constables fit for promotion as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in the year, 1999. The petitioner had challenged it in O.A.No.5197 of 2000. A batch of original applications had also been filed by various persons who were aggrieved by the said memorandum.
4. In spite of the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, an order of reversion had been issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Police, reverting the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to that of a Head Constable. The said order had been challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and an order of stay had been obtained. However, the petitioner was served with the charge memo in PR.No.418/PR3/2/2000, dated 10.10.2000, alleging that the petitioner had made certain derogatory statements against the higher officials, through his wife, for not selecting him as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the Range Promotion Board conducted during the month of August, 2000. The petitioner had submitted a reply denying the charges. However, the Inspector of Police, who had enquired into the allegations, had submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved. Even though the petitioner had not been furnished with the copy of the enquiry officer’s report, he was asked to submit a further representation. Based on the report, the disciplinary authority, the first respondent herein, had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years, without cumulative effect, on the petitioner, by an order, dated 23.11.2000. The said order had been served on the petitioner, on 21.12.2000.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. It is in violation of the service rules applicable to the petitioner, as well as the principles of natural justice. It is a case of no evidence and therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 23.11.2000, is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner, before he was asked to give a further representation, nor was it given along with the order of punishment, dated 23.11.2000. Further, the Inspector of Police is incompetent to issue a charge memo to the petitioner, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant point of time. The Inspector of Police is not the disciplinary authority and therefore, the charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be sustained, as valid. The punishment imposed on the petitioner based on the said charges would also be non est in law.
6. It was further contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner were vague in nature. The main allegation is that the petitioner, through his wife, had made certain allegations against the higher officials of the police department. However, there was no proof to show that the petitioner had instigated his wife to give a television interview.
7. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been sufficiently proved. Therefore, the punishment of stoppage of increment for the period of two years, without cumulative effect, had been imposed on him, by an order of the first respondent, dated 23.11.2000. Since the petitioner had instigated his wife to give a television interview making certain allegations against the higher officials of the police department, the charges had been framed against the petitioner and an enquiry had been conducted. The enquiry officer had held that the charges had been proved. Since making such wild allegations against higher authorities would lead to indiscipline in the police force, the petitioner had been imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment, for a period of two years, without cumulative effect.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents was not in a position to show that the petitioner had induced or prompted his wife to give a television interview making certain allegations against the higher police officials. Even if it was true that the petitioner had certain grievances, with regard to his promotion as a Sub-Inspector of Police and his subsequent reversion, it cannot be said that the television interview given by his wife was motivated. No proof has been shown to establish the causal link for this Court to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Further, it could not be shown that sufficient opportunity had been given to the petitioner to meet the charges levelled against him. Since the enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner he was not in a position to submit his further report against the proposed punishment.
9. This Court is of the considered view that if the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, is to be given effect to, in full measure, such a right possessed by the wife of the petitioner cannot be curtailed, except in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. It is also to be noted, at this juncture, that in a democracy, no one can afford to live in a glass house. If certain charges of corruption in high places are made, such allegations are to be met by those concerned, within the prescribed parameters of the law. One cannot shy away from such allegations, if there is some substance found in such allegations, unless, such allegations are found to be clearly motivated and made with the intention of tarnishing the image of those against whom they are made. No doubt, reasonable restrictions could be imposed by law, on the freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, on the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2). However, in the present case, it has not been shown as to how the petitioner was responsible for the voluntary act of his wife in giving a television interview nor has it been shown that she had exceeded the limits prescribed by law in exercising her right of fundamental freedom of speech and expression. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 23.11.2000, is liable to be quashed. Hence, it is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
csh
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
A.R.II, Chennai City Police,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
2.The Inspector of Police, E-Sec.
City Police Office, A.R.
Chennai 2