Vs.1. The Dy. Commissioner of Police v. in connection

W.P.No.16576 of 2015 for Mr.M. MuthappanFor Respondents : Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, AGP O R D E RIt is the case of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case in Cr.No.726 of 2007 while serving as a Head Constable in Saibaba Colony (L&O) Police Station, Coimbatore City under section 380 read with 109 IPC. It is on the allegation that on 07.08.2007, the petitioner had requested one Senthil, owner of the Working Women Hostel to allow a girl by name Usha to stay in the hostel who had committed theft of articles worth Rs.14,845/- and having regard to the theft committed by the said Usha, when the owner of the hostel intended to prefer a complaint with police, the petitioner prevented the owner of the hostel from taking any action and further paid him a sum of Rs.2000/- on 10.08.2007 and threatened him to sign a letter as if the entire amount has been received by him. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged by the owner of hostel Senthil against the petitioner in Cr.No.726 of 2007, based on which, an FIR was registered.2. In view of the said allegations, departmental proceedings were 2 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015initiated against the petitioner under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rues in PR.No.55 of 2007, dated 05.12.2017 referring four charges as against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply pursuant to which, enquiry officer was appointed and upon enquiry, all the charges were held proved and based on which, the first respondent, by order dated 23.02.2011 imposed punishment of postponement of next increment for 3 years which shall operate on his future increments. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent, who by order dated 03.05.2011, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed Review before the 3rd respondent, wherein, the punishment imposed on the petitioner was modified to the effect that postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that criminal case filed as against the petitioner had ended in acquittal and in fact, the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings is in respect of the very same issue as of the criminal case, hence, the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained in as much as the 3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015allegations levelled against the petitioner has not been proved. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that when the girl who is alleged to have been made to stay in the hostel was not able to be traced out and she has not been examined, therefore, the entire allegations as against the petitioner in the charge cannot be sustained and the punishment came to be imposed only on surmises.4. The learned Senior counsel further contended that in respect of the charges, the punishment imposed by stopping the increment for three years with cumulative effect, later modified without cumulative effect is not proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Further, the learned senior counsel contended that the appellate authority is the official first fact finding authority. As per Rule 6 of Tamilnadu Police Appeal Rules, he has to mandatorily consider the appeal by considering all the parameters enunciated thereunder, thus the order of the appellate authority cannot be sustained. By placing all the above submissions, he sought for indulgence of this court.5. Per contra, the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the enquiry conducted in the criminal proceedings 4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015and the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings are not similar and the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of having obtained an order of acquittal in the criminal case. He further contended that 5 witnesses have been examined and 10 documents have been marked and all the charges have been proved as against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority had only imposed punishment by taking a lenient view and the same was also subsequently modified by the order of the 3rd respondent and therefore the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, it requires no indulgence and sought for dismissal of this writ petition.6.Heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.7. The petitioner while working as Head Constable in B11 Sai Baba Colony (L&O) Police Station, Coimbatore City, was involved in a criminal case registered in Cr.No.726 of 2007 under section 380 r/w.109 IPC. It is the case where the petitioner had taken a girl Usha to the Hostel run by PW3 and had made her to stay in the hostel, where she had stolen from the hostel by 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015taking away materials worth Rs.14,845/-. Due to the registration of the criminal case, based on the complaint lodged by the owner of the hostel, a charge memo came to be issued to the petitioner on 08.12.2007 containing following four charges.'1) 07/08/2007?k; njjp 22/30 kzpf;F Mh;/v!;/ g[uk;. bt';flhr;ryk; nuhl;oy; cs;s a{/v!;Mh;j;jp bgz;fs; tpLjp chpikahsh; jpU/rptbre;jpy; vd;gthplk; Kd; gpd; mwpKfk; ;,y;yhj bgz; cc&h vd;gtiu nkw;go tpLjpapy; FLk;g ez;gh; vd;W Twp mwpKfk; bra;J j';Ftjw;F Vw;ghL bra;Jk;. Mjd; fhuzkhf nkw;go tpLjp;apy; ,Ue;J U:/14.845/-? kjpg;g[ila bghUl;fis me;j bgz; jpUof; bfhz;L jiykiwthf fhuzkhf ,Ue;j xG';fw;w bray;/2) 07/08/2007?k; njjp Mh;/v!/;g[uk;. b';flhr;ryk; nuhl;oYs;s a{/v!;/Mh;j;jp bgz;fs; j';Fk; tpLjpapy; jd;dhy; mwpKfg;gLj;jg;gl;L j';f itj;j cc&h vd;w bgz;. nkw;go tpLjpapy; ,Ue;J U:/14.845/-? kjpg;g[ila bghUl;fis jpUor;brd;w tptuk; mwp;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;e;J tpLjp chpikahsh; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLf;f Kad;w bghGJ rl;lhPjpahd eltof;if vLf;ftplhky; jLj;j xG';fw;w elj;ij.3) nkw;go bgz; jpUor;brd;w bghUl;fSf;F <lhd bjhifia jpU/rptbre;jpy;Fkhh; vd;gtUf;F brYj;Jtjhf cWjp mspj;J gpd;dh; mjid nfl;lnghJ 10/08/2007 ?k; njjp ,ut[ 09/30 kzpf;F nfhit khUjp jpnal;lh; mUnf itj;J nkw;go chpikahsiu jhd; bfhLf;Fk; 6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015U:/2.000-? ia kl;Lk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;L ifbaGj;jpLkhW kpul;oa xG';fPdkhd bray;/4) jk;khy; mwpKfg;gLj;jg;gl;l bgz; cc&h vd;gth; nfhit Mh;/v!;/g[uk;. a[/v!;/ Mh;j;jp bgz;fs; tpLjpapypUe;J U:/14.845-? kjpg;g[ila bghUl;fis jpUof; bfhz;L jiykiwthfpajhy; gp?2 Mh;/v!;/g[uk; Fw;w gphpt[ fhty; epiyaj;jpy; Fw;w vz; 727-2007 rl;lg;gphpt[ 380 ,/j/r/ tHf;Fg; gjpt[ bra;a fhuzkhf ,Ue;j xG';fPdkhdr; bray;/ '8. The petitioner had submitted a reply and not satisfied with the same, the enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry and in the enquiry, five witnesses were examined and 10 documents were marked. Pursuant to the enquiry and analysing the materials, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 01.12.2011 upholding all the four charges being proved. Notice was issued to the petitioner and based on reply, disciplinary authority/1st respondent, by order dated 23.02.2011, concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed punishment of postponement of next increment for three years which shall operate on his future increments. 9. The disciplinary authority found that the enquiry officer has examined 7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015five witnesses and considered 10 documents and the materials, came to the conclusion that the charges has been proved. However, the claim of the petitioner that since he has been acquitted from the criminal case, that has to be taken into account and all the charges to be dropped was not accepted by the authority. Challenging the orders of imposing punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent. The appellate Authority, by considering all the aspects, by order dated 03.05.2011, rejected the appeal, confirming the punishment. The petitioner had filed a further petition against the order passed in appeal before the 3rd respondent as against the punishment imposed against him. The 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 13.08.2013, after analyzing the entire materials available on record modified the punishment as postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect. 10. In the disciplinary enquiry, charges have been framed as against the petitioner. In respect of the first charge, the petitioner had brought a girl Usha and made her to stay in the hostel and further in respect of 3rd charge, when the girl had left the premises of the hostel by taking the materials from the hostel, 8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015the petitioner had attempted to give a sum of Rs.2000/- to the hostel owner and had taken all possible efforts to ensure that no complaint is lodged by the hostel owner. PW3 has duly spoken about the sequence of events of the petitioner in bringing the girl to hostel and also the attempt made by the petitioner by preventing PW3 from filing a complaint. Even though in respect of other allegations in the criminal proceedings, the petitioner could have got an order of acquittal from the criminal court, whereas in the instant case, under the disciplinary proceedings, evidence of PW3 and also the evidence of PW5 who is the inmate of the hostel, spoke about the sequence of events that the girl Usha being brought to the hostel and the petitioner made her to stay there and also prevented the hostel owner from lodging complaint establishes the charges levelled as against the petitioner.11. In the criminal case, the charges are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but whereas in departmental proceedings, it is only on the preponderance of probabilities and if there are some materials available on record to establish the charge made as against the petitioner, then, it is sufficient to prove the charges as against the delinquent. In the instant case, 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015the enquiry officer, after assessing the materials and the documents filed and also the statement of witnesses, has submitted the enquiry report holding all the charges are proved. The appellate authority had also considered these aspects and had rejected the appeal, but further it has been modified in the review. From the above proceedings, it could be seen that the enquiry has been conducted in an appropriate manner by affording fair opportunities to the petitioner .12. When once this Court find the enquriy was conducted in a fair manner, then in the judicial review, this court cannot sit on appeal and reappraise the evidence and to found out whether the matter has been assessed in an appropriate manner. From the charges levelled as against the petitioner, the petitioner being a member of the disciplinary force, should maintain decorum and dignity of his post. When charges framed as against the petitioner in respect of bringing a woman and making her to stay in hostel and also a further attempt to prevent the owner of the hostel from lodging the complaint having been proved, in the considered opinion of this Court, the punishment imposed as against the petitioner does not shake the conscious of the Court, 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015rather, the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 13. When the Review has been filed by the petitioner, infact, the 3rd respondent has, in detail, considered all the issues, by the impugned order dated 13.08.2013 had also modified the punishment from stoppage of increment of three years with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of increment of three years without cumulative effect. When already the issue has been considered by the respondents and the petitioner was able to obtain an order of modifying his punishment, this court feels no further interference is required. This Court finds that the enquiry has been conducted in the fair manner and punishment was imposed proportionate to the charges levelled, therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the respondent.14. In such a view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 26.09.202411 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015msrIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoTo1. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Coimbatore City.2. The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City.3. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4.G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.msrW.P.No.16576 OF 201512 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 201526.09.202413 of 13

W.P.No.16576 of 2015 for Mr.M. MuthappanFor Respondents : Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, AGP O R D E RIt is the case of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case in Cr.No.726 of 2007 while serving as a Head Constable in Saibaba Colony (L&O) Police Station, Coimbatore City under section 380 read with 109 IPC. It is on the allegation that on 07.08.2007, the petitioner had requested one Senthil, owner of the Working Women Hostel to allow a girl by name Usha to stay in the hostel who had committed theft of articles worth Rs.14,845/- and having regard to the theft committed by the said Usha, when the owner of the hostel intended to prefer a complaint with police, the petitioner prevented the owner of the hostel from taking any action and further paid him a sum of Rs.2000/- on 10.08.2007 and threatened him to sign a letter as if the entire amount has been received by him. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged by the owner of hostel Senthil against the petitioner in Cr.No.726 of 2007, based on which, an FIR was registered.2. In view of the said allegations, departmental proceedings were 2 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015initiated against the petitioner under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rues in PR.No.55 of 2007, dated 05.12.2017 referring four charges as against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply pursuant to which, enquiry officer was appointed and upon enquiry, all the charges were held proved and based on which, the first respondent, by order dated 23.02.2011 imposed punishment of postponement of next increment for 3 years which shall operate on his future increments. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent, who by order dated 03.05.2011, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed Review before the 3rd respondent, wherein, the punishment imposed on the petitioner was modified to the effect that postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that criminal case filed as against the petitioner had ended in acquittal and in fact, the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings is in respect of the very same issue as of the criminal case, hence, the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained in as much as the 3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015allegations levelled against the petitioner has not been proved. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that when the girl who is alleged to have been made to stay in the hostel was not able to be traced out and she has not been examined, therefore, the entire allegations as against the petitioner in the charge cannot be sustained and the punishment came to be imposed only on surmises.4. The learned Senior counsel further contended that in respect of the charges, the punishment imposed by stopping the increment for three years with cumulative effect, later modified without cumulative effect is not proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Further, the learned senior counsel contended that the appellate authority is the official first fact finding authority. As per Rule 6 of Tamilnadu Police Appeal Rules, he has to mandatorily consider the appeal by considering all the parameters enunciated thereunder, thus the order of the appellate authority cannot be sustained. By placing all the above submissions, he sought for indulgence of this court.5. Per contra, the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the enquiry conducted in the criminal proceedings 4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015and the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings are not similar and the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of having obtained an order of acquittal in the criminal case. He further contended that 5 witnesses have been examined and 10 documents have been marked and all the charges have been proved as against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority had only imposed punishment by taking a lenient view and the same was also subsequently modified by the order of the 3rd respondent and therefore the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, it requires no indulgence and sought for dismissal of this writ petition.6.Heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.7. The petitioner while working as Head Constable in B11 Sai Baba Colony (L&O) Police Station, Coimbatore City, was involved in a criminal case registered in Cr.No.726 of 2007 under section 380 r/w.109 IPC. It is the case where the petitioner had taken a girl Usha to the Hostel run by PW3 and had made her to stay in the hostel, where she had stolen from the hostel by 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015taking away materials worth Rs.14,845/-. Due to the registration of the criminal case, based on the complaint lodged by the owner of the hostel, a charge memo came to be issued to the petitioner on 08.12.2007 containing following four charges.'1) 07/08/2007?k; njjp 22/30 kzpf;F Mh;/v!;/ g[uk;. bt';flhr;ryk; nuhl;oy; cs;s a{/v!;Mh;j;jp bgz;fs; tpLjp chpikahsh; jpU/rptbre;jpy; vd;gthplk; Kd; gpd; mwpKfk; ;,y;yhj bgz; cc&h vd;gtiu nkw;go tpLjpapy; FLk;g ez;gh; vd;W Twp mwpKfk; bra;J j';Ftjw;F Vw;ghL bra;Jk;. Mjd; fhuzkhf nkw;go tpLjp;apy; ,Ue;J U:/14.845/-? kjpg;g[ila bghUl;fis me;j bgz; jpUof; bfhz;L jiykiwthf fhuzkhf ,Ue;j xG';fw;w bray;/2) 07/08/2007?k; njjp Mh;/v!/;g[uk;. b';flhr;ryk; nuhl;oYs;s a{/v!;/Mh;j;jp bgz;fs; j';Fk; tpLjpapy; jd;dhy; mwpKfg;gLj;jg;gl;L j';f itj;j cc&h vd;w bgz;. nkw;go tpLjpapy; ,Ue;J U:/14.845/-? kjpg;g[ila bghUl;fis jpUor;brd;w tptuk; mwp;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;e;J tpLjp chpikahsh; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLf;f Kad;w bghGJ rl;lhPjpahd eltof;if vLf;ftplhky; jLj;j xG';fw;w elj;ij.3) nkw;go bgz; jpUor;brd;w bghUl;fSf;F <lhd bjhifia jpU/rptbre;jpy;Fkhh; vd;gtUf;F brYj;Jtjhf cWjp mspj;J gpd;dh; mjid nfl;lnghJ 10/08/2007 ?k; njjp ,ut[ 09/30 kzpf;F nfhit khUjp jpnal;lh; mUnf itj;J nkw;go chpikahsiu jhd; bfhLf;Fk; 6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015U:/2.000-? ia kl;Lk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;L ifbaGj;jpLkhW kpul;oa xG';fPdkhd bray;/4) jk;khy; mwpKfg;gLj;jg;gl;l bgz; cc&h vd;gth; nfhit Mh;/v!;/g[uk;. a[/v!;/ Mh;j;jp bgz;fs; tpLjpapypUe;J U:/14.845-? kjpg;g[ila bghUl;fis jpUof; bfhz;L jiykiwthfpajhy; gp?2 Mh;/v!;/g[uk; Fw;w gphpt[ fhty; epiyaj;jpy; Fw;w vz; 727-2007 rl;lg;gphpt[ 380 ,/j/r/ tHf;Fg; gjpt[ bra;a fhuzkhf ,Ue;j xG';fPdkhdr; bray;/ '8. The petitioner had submitted a reply and not satisfied with the same, the enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry and in the enquiry, five witnesses were examined and 10 documents were marked. Pursuant to the enquiry and analysing the materials, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 01.12.2011 upholding all the four charges being proved. Notice was issued to the petitioner and based on reply, disciplinary authority/1st respondent, by order dated 23.02.2011, concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed punishment of postponement of next increment for three years which shall operate on his future increments. 9. The disciplinary authority found that the enquiry officer has examined 7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015five witnesses and considered 10 documents and the materials, came to the conclusion that the charges has been proved. However, the claim of the petitioner that since he has been acquitted from the criminal case, that has to be taken into account and all the charges to be dropped was not accepted by the authority. Challenging the orders of imposing punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent. The appellate Authority, by considering all the aspects, by order dated 03.05.2011, rejected the appeal, confirming the punishment. The petitioner had filed a further petition against the order passed in appeal before the 3rd respondent as against the punishment imposed against him. The 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 13.08.2013, after analyzing the entire materials available on record modified the punishment as postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect. 10. In the disciplinary enquiry, charges have been framed as against the petitioner. In respect of the first charge, the petitioner had brought a girl Usha and made her to stay in the hostel and further in respect of 3rd charge, when the girl had left the premises of the hostel by taking the materials from the hostel, 8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015the petitioner had attempted to give a sum of Rs.2000/- to the hostel owner and had taken all possible efforts to ensure that no complaint is lodged by the hostel owner. PW3 has duly spoken about the sequence of events of the petitioner in bringing the girl to hostel and also the attempt made by the petitioner by preventing PW3 from filing a complaint. Even though in respect of other allegations in the criminal proceedings, the petitioner could have got an order of acquittal from the criminal court, whereas in the instant case, under the disciplinary proceedings, evidence of PW3 and also the evidence of PW5 who is the inmate of the hostel, spoke about the sequence of events that the girl Usha being brought to the hostel and the petitioner made her to stay there and also prevented the hostel owner from lodging complaint establishes the charges levelled as against the petitioner.11. In the criminal case, the charges are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but whereas in departmental proceedings, it is only on the preponderance of probabilities and if there are some materials available on record to establish the charge made as against the petitioner, then, it is sufficient to prove the charges as against the delinquent. In the instant case, 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015the enquiry officer, after assessing the materials and the documents filed and also the statement of witnesses, has submitted the enquiry report holding all the charges are proved. The appellate authority had also considered these aspects and had rejected the appeal, but further it has been modified in the review. From the above proceedings, it could be seen that the enquiry has been conducted in an appropriate manner by affording fair opportunities to the petitioner .12. When once this Court find the enquriy was conducted in a fair manner, then in the judicial review, this court cannot sit on appeal and reappraise the evidence and to found out whether the matter has been assessed in an appropriate manner. From the charges levelled as against the petitioner, the petitioner being a member of the disciplinary force, should maintain decorum and dignity of his post. When charges framed as against the petitioner in respect of bringing a woman and making her to stay in hostel and also a further attempt to prevent the owner of the hostel from lodging the complaint having been proved, in the considered opinion of this Court, the punishment imposed as against the petitioner does not shake the conscious of the Court, 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015rather, the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 13. When the Review has been filed by the petitioner, infact, the 3rd respondent has, in detail, considered all the issues, by the impugned order dated 13.08.2013 had also modified the punishment from stoppage of increment of three years with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of increment of three years without cumulative effect. When already the issue has been considered by the respondents and the petitioner was able to obtain an order of modifying his punishment, this court feels no further interference is required. This Court finds that the enquiry has been conducted in the fair manner and punishment was imposed proportionate to the charges levelled, therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the respondent.14. In such a view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 26.09.202411 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 2015msrIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoTo1. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Coimbatore City.2. The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City.3. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4.G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.msrW.P.No.16576 OF 201512 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16576 of 201526.09.202413 of 13