IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15/12/2004
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR
Writ Petition No.37138 of 2004
and
Writ Petition No. 35143 of 2004
and
WPMP.Nos44577,35143, 42365 of 2004
K.Kumar ... Petitioner
in WP.37138/04
G.Rajan ... Petitioner
in WP.35143/04
-Vs-
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Dy. Inspector General of Police
Chengai Range, Chennai-16
3. The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
Chennai-104. ... Respondents in both WPs
Writ Petition No:37138 of 2004 has been filed for the issuance of a
writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondents in connection
with the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in O.A.No.8794 of 1998
dated 26.4.2004 by modifying the order of punishment issued by the 1st
respondent in P.R.52/96, dated 14.10.1998 and quash the same.
Writ Petition No:35143 of 2004 has been filed for the issuance of a
writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondents in connection
with the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in O.A.No.8795 of 1998
dated 26.4.2004 by modifying the order of punishment issued by the 1st
respondent in P.R.51/96, dated 14.10.1998 and quash the same.
!For petitioner … Mr.K.Venkataramani
^For respondents … Mr.S.Komathinayagam
Addl.Govt.,Pleader
:COMMON ORDER
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY P.K.MISRA,J.,)
The present writ petitions are directed against the orders dated
26.4.2004 passed in O.A.Nos:8794 and 8795 of 1998 respectively by the Tamil
Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
2. Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents.
3. The impugned Original Applications were filed by the respective
petitioners challenging the orders passed in the Disciplinary Proceedings
awarding punishment of dismissal. The Tribunal after reanalysing the evidence
has come to the conclusion that the petitioners and two other persons have not
performed their duty assigned to them in a proper manner and allowed the
prisoners to be taken out to a place which was not in their itinerary.
Therefore, the Tribunal even though had not accepted the entire evidence in
the disciplinary proceedings, came to the conclusion that the punishment
should be modified to stoppage of increment for Five years with cumulative
effect.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that
in fact the Tribunal having differed from the findings recorded by the
Disciplinary Authority, should have exonerated the petitioners completely and
the punishment imposed is unjustified. It is also further contended that at
any rate, the punishment imposed appears to be grossly disproportionate to the
nature of delinquency committed by the petitioners.
5. Having heard the learned counsels at length and having gone
through the materials on record, including the orders of the Tribunal, we are
unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. As a matter of fact, even accepting the modified findings as
rendered by the Tribunal, we are convinced that the petitioners had derelicted
in their duty. Even, the modified punishment imposed by the Tribunal appears
to be very lenient because a Police personnel is a person who is required to
be much more careful than an ordinary employee.
6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners also made his
submissions that in view of the acquittal in the criminal case, there should
not have been any further departmental proceedings and at any rate, the
acquittal in the criminal case should have been considered by the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in 1999 (II) CTC 579.
7. We do not find that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision
can be made applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case. Law is well settled that in a departmental proceedings, the standard of
proof is less rigorous as compared to the standard of proof required in
respect of a criminal case.
8. The Disciplinary Authority had considered the evidence and imposed
the punishment of dismissal. Even though the Tribunal has not accepted the
entire findings of the Disciplinary Authority, it has independently considered
the evidence and has found improper performance of duty by the delinquent
Police personnel. Having regard to all these aspects, we do not find any
merit in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, connected WPMPs are also dismissed. No costs.
Index:yes
Internet: yes
gkv
Copy to:
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Dy. Inspector General of Police
Chengai Range, Chennai-16
3. The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
Chennai-104.