IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2007
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
W.P. No.30939 of 2005
AND
WPMP. No.18205 of 2006
N.Ravindran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Additional Director General of Police
(Law & Order)
Tamil Nadu
Chennai 4.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Coimbatore Range
Coimbatore 18. .. Respondents
This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent herein passed in Rc No.22/D1/PR/2004, dated 27.10.2004 imposing a punishment of postponement of next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and the consequential order passed by the first respondent in his Rc No.17585/AP 2(3)/2005, dated 1.8.2005 confirming the above punishment and quash the same and direct the respondents to repay the petitioner all the monetary benefits withheld, with all consequential monetary and service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ravi Shanmugam for M/s.Sudha Ravi Associates
For Respondents : Mr.I.Paranthaman, AGP
ORDER
Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court, the petitioner, the Inspector of Police attached to Tamil Nadu Police Department, has filed this writ petition for the issue of the writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent, namely the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, passed in Rc No.22/D1/PR/2004, dated 27.10.2004 imposing a punishment of postponement of next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and the consequential order passed by the first respondent, namely the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Tamil Nadu, Chennai, in his Rc No.17585/AP 2(3)/2005, dated 1.8.2005 confirming the above punishment.
2.The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
3.The case of the petitioner, seeking the above relief, is that the petitioner, who joined the Police service as Sub Inspector of Police on 13.10.1976, was promoted as the Inspector of Police on 4.12.1990; that while the petitioner was working at Aruppukkottai Taluk Police Station from June, 2000 to November, 2000, on 1.11.2000, one Velusamy had given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, stating that one Jeyaraman of Lakshmipuram, had assaulted him on 30.10.2000 night; that a case was registered in Aruppukkottai Taluk Police Station in Crime No.225/2000 under Section 307 IPC; that the said Jeyaraman was brought to the police station; that he was aged about 56 years; that he was in police custody; that out of fear that he would be remanded to judicial custody, all of a sudden, he injured his nose by himself and there was a bleeding from his nose; that he was sent to the Government Hospital, Aruppukkotai with the medical memo; that in view of the fact that he had hyper tension and giddiness and his condition was not well, he was released on bail at about 20.45 hours on 1.11.2000; that pursuant to the complaint given by the said Jeyaraman that he was assaulted by the petitioner when he was in police custody, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry and has also given a specific finding that there was no evidence to hold that the petitioner was guilty, but he has recommended for departmental action; that accordingly, a charge was framed against the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range under Rule 3(b); that the Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime, Virudhunagar District was appointed as the Enquiry Officer; that during enquiry, number of witnesses were examined and he has also given a finding that the charge has not been proved; that despite the same, when the matter was placed before the second respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, he has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and has held that the second part of the charge was proved; that the second respondent had agreed that the petitioner had not assaulted the said Jeyaraman, but the given charge is for having assaulted Jayaraman, which resulted in bleeding from his nose; that so far as the show cause notice was concerned, it should not have been issued and action should have been dropped, in view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer; that the petitioner was given punishment of postponement of next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect; that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, namely the Additional Director General of Police, (Law & Order), Chennai, but without any speaking order, he has rejected the appeal and under these circumstances, this writ petition has been brought forth before this court.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the instant case once there was no evidence available that the petitioner has assaulted the said Jeyaraman and has caused bleeding injury, though number of witnesses were examined and that was the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent should have accepted the findings. Despite the findings, the second respondent has issued a show cause notice and has also imposed punishment, which is contrary to law. When there was an appeal, the first respondent has passed an order, which is not a reasoned one and it is not a speaking order and there is simply rejection of the appeal without considering the same. Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, because of the punishment imposed, the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted as the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the petitioner has lost his chance for a few years and hence, it has become necessary to allow the writ petition by quashing the orders of the first and second respondents and also to issue directions. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1914 (SUR ENAMEL AND STAMPING WORKS LTD., VS. THE WORKMEN).
5.The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents also. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, though there was no proof that it was the petitioner, who assaulted the said Jeyaraman, there was evidence that he had got bleeding injury; that at the time when the incident took place, it was the police officer, namely the petitioner and the victim were available inside the room and therefore, an explanation should have been given by the petitioner as to how the victim had got bleeding injury and under these circumstances, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has conducted enquiry originally, has recommended for departmental action; that the charge was levelled against the petitioner properly; that there was an enquiry by the Additional Superintendent of Police; that once the Enquiry report was placed before the second respondent, he has held that the second part of the charge was proved; that an appeal was preferred and it was bereft of merits and hence, the appellate forum, namely the first respondent, has rejected the appeal and hence, the writ petition has got to be dismissed.
6.The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7.The court is of the considered opinion, after looking into the materials available and also the submissions made, that it is a fit case where the court has to allow the petition. In the instant case, it is not in controversy that while the petitioner was serving as the Inspector of Police, Aruppukkottai Taluk Police Station, on 1.11.2000, a case came to be registered against one Jeyaraman in Crime No.225/2000 under Section 307 IPC. It is also not in controversy that while he was in police custody, he had got bleeding from his nose. Consequent upon his complaint, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry and he has also found that there was no evidence to hold that it was caused by the petitioner, but even then, he recommended for departmental action, stating that the petitioner was responsible for bleeding injury, since it has occasioned when the said Jayaraman was in police custody. Accordingly, charges were levelled against the petitioner herein. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime, Virudhunagar District was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
8.It is not in controversy that after examining number of witnesses, he gave his report on 5.6.2004 that the charges were not proved. The charge was to the effect that the petitioner has assaulted the said Jayaraman and it was an high handed action while he was in police custody. After examining the number of witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has clearly found that it was not factually proved. When the matter was placed before the second respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, he has held that the second part of the charge was proved. It is a matter of surprise to note that while the Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry after examining number of witnesses, has recorded a finding that the charge was not proved, there was no reason or ground for taking a contra view. The second respondent has held as if the charge was proved, which was contra to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
9.The court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the second respondent, which was contra to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, was not correct. Hence, once the factual finding that it was the petitioner, who caused bleeding injury by assaulting remains unproved, there is no question of holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved and further, once charge was not proved, there is no question of awarding punishment. Thus, the second respondent, going against the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, has awarded punishment, which was not correct and that has got to be set aside. Aggrieved over the imposition of punishment, when an appeal was preferred before the first respondent, the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) has not even considered the grounds put forth and has passed an order and it was not a speaking order. What are all found was that no points are made out and hence, it was rejected. It is not a reasoned order. Under these circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where it could be remitted back to the first respondent to consider the appeal again. In order to avoid the avoidable delay and in view of the decision taken by the second respondent contrary to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the court is of the considered opinion that it would be fit and proper that both the orders passed by both the authorities below have got to be quashed. Accordingly, they are quashed. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected WPMP is closed.
vvk
To
1. The Additional Director General of Police
(Law & Order)
Tamil Nadu
Chennai 4.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Coimbatore Range
Coimbatore 18.