?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS %DATED: 20/08/2010 *CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.Raja +WP.44069 of 2006 #P.K.Pathamuthu $Director General of Police !FOR PETITIONER : S.Ravi ^FOR RESPONDENT : S.Gopinathan :ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.08.2010
CORAM
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice T.Raja
W.P.No.44069 of 2006
O.A.No.3232 of 2000
P. K. Pathamuthu
Sub Inspector of Police
Tirnelveli District … Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director General of Police
Chennai 600 004.
2. Secretary to Government
Home (Police IV Department)
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. … Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.3232 of 2000, from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect passed by the first respondent herein in Rc.No.31105/CON III (2)/95 dated 01.04.1998 and the consequential order of the second respondent passed in his G.O.ID.No.129 Home (Polive IV Department) dated 11.02.2000 and the order of the first respondent herein passed in R.C.No.129130/NGB I (1)/99 dated 18.08.1999 insofar as the petitioner is concerned with all consequential benefits such as promotion, increment, pay and other monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Ravi For Respondents : Mr. S. Gopinathan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner, while serving as Sub Inspector of Police at Sankarakoil Police Station was issued with a charge memo by the first respondent in P.R.No.112 of 1995 under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, for an allegation that on 17.07.1994 at 19.00 hours, he had entered into the municipal cattle shed and assaulted one Thiru.Algarsamy, Cattleshed Watchman and caused injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegation. But the Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, ordered for an enquiry and the Enquriy Officer, after the completion of the enquiry, submitted his enquiry report holding him not guilty of the charges. However, the Enquiry Officer held that the lapse viz., the petitioner’s failure to obtain bail bond or undertaking at that time when the complainant was released on the way was established. The Disciplinary Authority, after agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, dropped taking further action on the punishment roll. Thereafter, the matter was suo motu reviewed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy Inspector General of Police, who after going through the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dropped the charges concurring with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and the matter was given a quietus on 2.2.1997. But on the death of the victim viz., Alargasamy, the first respondent/Director General of Police, took the matter once again by raising sue motu power vested with Rule 15(A) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, and issued show cause notice once again calling upon the petitioner to submit his further representation as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner also submitted his detailed explanation. Disagreeing with the explanation given by the petitioner, the Director General of Police, imposed the impugned punishment. Challenging the impugned order, the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal to the second respondent and after the dismissal of the same, the matter was taken up by way of an Original Application on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent/Director General of Police, has no power under Rule 15(A) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules to review second time, as the review power was already exercised by the Deputy Inspector General of Police/Appellate Authority. Secondly, the Disciplinary Authority, dropped taking further action against the petitioner, as the charges leveled against the petitioner have not been proved by the Enquiry Officer. The same was also carefully considered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who concurring with the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority, dropped taking further action against the petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent once again cannot review the matter, as that power has not been given or available to the first respondent. On that basis he prayed for setting aside the impugned order. In his further submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner on account of the punishment meted out to him, he has suffered the primary loss in his career and on that basis prayed for setting aside the impugned order of punishment as nothing was established before the enquiry proceedings. Thirdly, the first respondent has gone beyond the purview of the charge for which the petitioner has already given satisfactory explanation to both the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. In that view of the matter, the imposition of punishment to the extent of affecting his primary loss, cannot stand any reason.
3. Per contra, the Additional Government Pleader, would submit that though the petitioner was charged with one charge for having beaten up one Thiru. Alagarsamy, on 17.07.1994, he was finally found not guilty except to the limited extent that he committed lapse in not obtaining bail bond. However, when the matter was examined by exercising his power of suo motu, the Deputy Inspector General of Police having accepted the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority, thought it fit to drop further action against the petitioner in the earlier occasion. However, when the victim viz., Thiru. Alagarsamy, subsequently, died on 27.02.1995, the Director General of Police, while exercising the suo motu power, though decided to impose major punishment of dismissal from service, finally, thought it fit to impose only a minor punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Therefore, the punishment meted out to the petitioner by the first respondent is being not a major punishment, this Court, while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, need not interfere with the quantum of punishment. On that basis the learned Additional Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Prima facie, the petitioner was finally found not guilty by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority also after accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, dropped further proceedings. The said findings was also accepted by the Director General of Police as well as by the Appellate Authority, while exercising suo motu power conferred under Rule 15 (A) (i) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955. Thereafter, when the victim-Alagarsamy, who was allegedly beaten up by the petitioner, died on 27.02.1995, the Director General of Police, in view of subsequent development exercising the suo motu power under Rule 15(A) (2) of TNPSS(D&A) has issued suo motu notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his further explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service. After receiving the explanation given by the petitioner, stating that the victim-Alagarsamy, not died out of assault made by him, but died by committing suicide, changed his mind and finally imposed a simple punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. There is no bar imposed for second exercise of suo moto power given under Rule 15 A (i) (ii) of T.N.P.S.S. (D &A) Rule. In that view of the matter, since the punishment being minor in nature, this Court, while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the said punishment. Therefore, the Writ Petition finding no merit stands dismissed. No costs.
20.08.2010
To
1. The Director General of Police
Chennai 600 004.
2) Secretary to Government
Home (Police IV Department)
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009. W.P.No.44069 of 2006