BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/09/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD).No.1030 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1/2007 and 1/2010 S.Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 2.The Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 3.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City Police, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli-9. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli City Police, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli-9. 5.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tirunelveli City Police, Palayamkottai Sub Division, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-2. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the first respondent Director General of Police, Chennai relating to the impugned order passed by him in his proceedings in R.C.No.252352/AP.2(1)/2005, dated 15.01.2006 confirming ultimately the findings of charge proved and the punishment imposed by the fourth respondent the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City Police, Tirunelveli, passed in PR.49/1999, dated 07.09.1999 to quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Senthurpandian ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Government Advocate ******* :ORDER
******
Heard Mr.P.Senthurpandian, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge
the order of the first respondent, Director General of Police, dated 15.01.2006,
who, in turn, has confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the fourth
respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Police, dated 07.09.1999.
3. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing on 08.02.2007, notice
of motion was ordered and on notice from this Court, the third respondent has
filed a counter-affidavit dated Nil (March, 2007).
4. The petitioner was imposed with a penalty of reduction in time
scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect. The reason for
imposition of the penalty was that while he was escorting an accused, by name
Kundu @ Karuppasamy, who was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.295 of 1999
on the file of Tirunelveli Junction Police Station, in an auto-rickshaw, he took
him to a place unauthorizedly on 11.04.1999. The petitioner was escorted the
accused from the sub jail, Tirunelveli to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital
and the petitioner has facilitated bringing the wife of the accused, after
sending a boy to her house. The statements were recorded from the wife and
another relative as well as from the auto drivers. Charges under Rule 3(b) of
the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955
were framed and an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. In that
enquiry, six witnesses were examined. During the enquiry, the wife and the
relative of the accused as well as the auto-rickshaw drivers were examined as
P.Ws.1 to 4, who turned hostile. Nevertheless the Deputy Commission of Police,
the fourth respondent herein, on the basis of the testimony of P.W.5 and P.W.6
as well as the documentary evidence, found the petitioner guilty. It was on that
basis, the minor penalty came to be imposed.
5. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli and the same was rejected on
10.02.2000. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a review petition to the
second respondent. The second respondent, on considering the review petition,
while confirming the findings recorded against the petitioner, modified the
punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years, but
however, without cumulative effect.
6. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a mercy petition to the
first respondent. The first respondent, on a speaking order dated 15.01.2006,
rejected his mercy petition. As against this penalty order, the Writ Petition
has been filed.
7. In the counter-affidavit, it was stated that even though the
relatives of the accused went back from their statement, the statement made by
P.W.5 and P.W.6 and the document in Ex.P.8 are sufficient to hold the petitioner
guilty.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon
a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the State of Tamil Nadu, etc.
and others vs. S.Mahalingam and others reported in 2005 Writ L.R. 786, would
contend that in order to prove a charge, there must be independent witnesses,
even though the evidence of official witnesses must be corroborated by
independent witnesses.
9. In that case, the Court was concerned with major penalty of
dismissal of Government servant for having received bribery amount. In that
context, the Court was concerned about independent witnesses. The said decision
cannot have any application to the facts on hand. Even though a minor penalty
was imposed on the petitioner, he was dealt with the procedure for imposition of
major penalty and, therefore, it cannot be said that he did not have a
sufficient safe guard in the enquiry held against him. On the contrary for
imposition of a minor penalty, the charges were framed under Rule 3(b) of the
Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. There
was no necessity even to conduct any elaborate enquiry and it is sufficient that
on receipt of explanation, the authority can impose a penalty.
10. In the present case, the petitioner had the benefit of an
appeal, review and mercy petition before the hierarchy of officers and the
reviewing authority modified the penalty by converting the penalty having a
cumulative effect into non-cumulative effect.
11. The Supreme Court, vide judgment in V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri
Prabhakara Hari Babu reported on 2008(5) SCC 569, has held that this Court has a
limited jurisdiction to go into the proportionality of punishment. A well
reasoned order of the departmental authority cannot be interfered with on the
basis of sympathy and sentiments. Once the formalities of an enquiry is
completed and the charges are proved, the Courts ought not to have disturbed the
penalty.
12. Further, in Praveen Bhatia v. Union of India reported in
2009(4) SCC 225, the Supreme Court has held that judicial review of penalty is
extremely limited and the Court can interfere only when the relevant factors are
not taken into account.
13. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order and hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there
will be no order as to costs.
SML
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai-4.
2.The Additional Director General of Police,
Law and Order,
Mylapore, Chennai-4.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirunelveli City Police,
Kokkirakulam,
Tirunelveli-9.
4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Tirunelveli City Police,
Kokkirakulam,
Tirunelveli-9.
5.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Law and Order,
Tirunelveli City Police,
Palayamkottai Sub Division,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli-2.