IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.06.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.38408 of 2006
P.Kothandaraman ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tanjore Range, Tanjore.
3.The Director General of Police,
Chennai 600 004. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.6720 of 1999 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the orders passed in PR No.158/97 dated 30.01.1998 by 1st respondent, C.No.54/AP/RO/TAN/98 dated 29.09.1998 by the 2nd respondent and Rc No.APIII(2)/139095/99 dated 12.08.1999 by the 3rd respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.K.Srinivasan for M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition came to be transferred from Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, wherein the petitioner had filed the Original Application in O.A.No.6720 of 1999, the challenge was made by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition is against the order of punishment passed by the 1st respondent namely, the punishment of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect.
2. The brief facts of case as filed in O.A.No.6720 of 1999 which stood transferred to this Court is as follows:-
The petitioner, while serving as Sub-Inspector of Police at Voidmedu Police Station from 06.01.1993 to 03.07.1996, is said to have investigated the case registered in Crime No.741 of 1993 on the file of Voimedu Police Station which was registered for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 325, 323, 336 and 307 IPC which was later on altered to Section 302 IPC. After conducting the investigation and obtaining the approval from the Public Prosecutor, a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate at Thiruthuraipoondi on 15.02.1994. The matter was remitted to the Sessions Court in S.C.No.4 of 1997 and the case ended in acquittal on 25.06.1997 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. In the order of Sessions Court, there was no observation that the accused were acquitted due to the perfunctory investigation done by the petitioner. The petitioner being a senior most Inspector of Police in the District is alleged to have committed serious mistake in not properly assisting the prosecution side. On the basis of the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam for perfunctory investigation in Crime No.741 of 1993 on the file of Voimedu Police Station which led to the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case, thereby exhibited the unbecoming conduct. The petitioner, after receiving the charge memo, submitted his detailed explanation on 01.12.1997 stating that there was no lapses on his part in the investigation. Further, he pleaded that he was due for retirement on 28.02.1998 and, therefore, on the ground that he has put in 36 years of service in the Police Department with good service records, he further pleaded that he should not be penalised in the last days of his service. The Enquiry Officer, namely the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedaranyam, having not agreed with the explanation offered by the petitioner, and on the basis of the available records, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed the delinquency and finally concluded that the charges made against the petitioner stood proved. The 1st respondent, being the disciplinary authority, agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect by an order dated 30.01.1998. Aggrieved by the order of punishment imposed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur. But, the 2nd respondent, having seen the nature of the charges made against the petitioner as well as the findings of the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the final conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority for imposing the punishment of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect, disagreed with the appeal made by the petitioner. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Review Application before the 3rd respondent namely, the Director General of Police. The 3rd respondent also, having seen that the appellate authority had agreed with the imposition of punishment passed against the petitioner by the 1st respondent, rejected the Review Application as against which the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Mr.B.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had put in 36 years of service in the Police Department and he being a senior most Inspector of Police in the District has all along discharged meritorious performance throughout his 36 years of service. Therefore, the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge at Nagapattinam holding that the petitioner was responsible for the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case should not be made against the petitioner. Further, in his submission it was also pleaded that the disciplinary authority, without furnishing a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s Report and even without obtaining further representation from the petitioner, straightway agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, the imposition of punishment of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. On that basis he prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allow the Writ Petition.
4. On the other hand, Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner were very serious in nature, inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge at Nagapattinam having seen that the criminal case was dismissed only due to lack of evidence produced by the Police Department and the further observations made by the learned Sessions Judge at Nagapattinam, warranted the Police Department to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner since he was the senior most Police Officer working in the relevant Police Station at the relevant point of time. On the above basis he prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
6.The petitioner while serving as Inspector of Police at Voimedu Police Station from 06.01.1993 to 03.07.1996, investigated a criminal case which was registered in Crime No.741 of 1993 on the file of Voimedu Police Station in respect of an offence under Sections 147, 148, 325, 323, 336 and 307 IPC. Which was subsequently altered to Section 302 IPC. When a person is alleged to have been murdered and a case was registered under Section 302 IPC against the accused, the petitioner who was serving as Inspector of Police at Voimedu Police Station at the relevant point of time having not performed his duty effectively to bring home the guilt of the accused, the Sessions Court at Nagapattinam had recorded detailed findings against the Police Officer namely, the petitioner, while acquitting the accused under Section 302 IPC.
7. In view of the specific observations made by the learned Sessions Judge at Nagapattinam, the Police Department had to initiate suitable action against the petitioner and, therefore, a charge memo was issued against him. Even in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer also having seen that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the Enquiry Officer has found the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him and on that basis submitted detailed findings before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority also having seen the findings of the Enquiry Officer which were against the petitioner, finally passed an order of punishment of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect.
8. Aggrieved by the order of punishment imposed by the 1st respondent namely, the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the 2nd respondent herein and the 2nd respondent also having seen that the appeal filed by the petitioner also failed to carry any merit, dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved over the order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed a Review Application before the 3rd respondent namely, the Director General of Police, who also, having seen that the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect, declined to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate authority.
9. It is settled legal position that this Court, while siting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of quantum of punishment always held that unless there is illegality in the impugned order, it cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment. In the present, there being no illegality in the impugned order, this Court has no other option than to dismiss the Writ Petition.
10. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present Writ Petition, the same is dismissed. No costs.
smn
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tanjore Range, Tanjore.
3.The Director General of Police,
Chennai 600 004