IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 31.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.27768 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 T.Athimuthu .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli. 3.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents 1 to 3 in connection with the impugned orders passed by them in PR No.39/2009 dated 2.8.2009, C.No.C4/AP120/2009, dated 25.9.2009 and RC No.30967/AP2(1)/2010, dated 10.9.2010 and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani,SC for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Ms.C.Devi, GA - - - - ORDER
The petitioner was who employed as a Grade I Police Constable, has filed the present writ petition challenging an order of the first respondent, dated 2.8.2009 and confirmed by the order of the second respondent, dated 25.9.2009 as well as the order of the third respondent, dated 10.9.2010 and seeks to set aside the same.
2.When the matter came up on 6.12.2010, notice was given. On notice from this court, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 18.2.2011. By the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed with penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years. The charge against the petitioner was that while the petitioner was in Senkottai Police Station, the petitioner was directed by the Inspector of Police to go along with an Head Constable Subramanian to Velayuthapuram in Ambasamudram and trace out one Sheila, Wife of Balan, who was issued summons in connection with investigation in Senkottai police station Crime No.398/2008 under Section 394 IPC and while she was kept in All Women Police Station, Tenkasi, she had left the station without any intimation. The petitioner along with the Head Constable, after reaching the house of Sheila, found that woman in her house and informed the Inspector of Police over phone about locating her. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police and other police personnel went to the house of Sheila and took her to All Women Police Station for an interrogation.
3.It was stated that at that time, the petitioner along with the Head Constable had entered into the house of Sheila and took away Rs.11500/- from her house without the knowledge of any one. The said Sheila went to her house and found that the amount kept in her house was stolen. Immediately, she rang up to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi and informed him about the conduct of the police personnel. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi had enquired about the stolen money. But none of the police personnel told him about the truth. After a lapse of three days, the police personnel went to the house of Sheila and returned Rs.6500/-. After preliminary enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, it was found that the petitioner along with the other Head Constable was the mischief-maker. A charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued in P.R.No.39/09 for the highly reprehensible conduct in stealing the money from the house of Sheila. After conducting an oral enquiry and on finding that the charges were proved, the punishment came to be issued.
4.The petitioner’s appeal before the second respondent was rejected. Thereafter, a further appeal to the Director General of Police (R-3) was also rejected. In the enquiry, the deposition made by Sheila though was found to be contradictory, it was found that in the oral enquiry, she had given consistent statement. The petitioner’s conduct of going back to her house and returning back some amount clearly proved his complicity. Even if the said Sheila had turned hostile, the other departmental witnesses spoke about the conduct of the petitioner.
5.Considering the fact that proper enquiry was held and the authorities had appreciated the evidence and found the petitioner guilty and let him off with minor penalty, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The petitioner’s misconduct is really shocking especially coming from the person belonging to police force. When charges were established in a proper enquiry and after appreciation of evidence and finding him guilty, the minor punishment was issued. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to interfere with such penalty.
6.Once it is held that if there is a proper enquiry in which legal evidence is let in, the scope for judicial review over the penalty imposed is very limited. This ratio has been laid down by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and others Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu reported in (2008) 5 SCC 569. It is necessary to refer the following passages found in paras 20 and 21, which are as follows:
“20. The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. (See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal; State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra; SBI v. Mahatma Mishra; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi; State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Dev7.)
21. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India.)
7.In the light of the above, there is no case made out for interfering with the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
31.03.2011
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
vvk
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4.
K.CHANDRU, J.
vvk
W.P.NO.27768 of 2010
31.03.2011