Asaithambi v. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.04.2O09CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.K.MISRAandTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P.No.4805 of 2008andM.P.No.1 of 20081.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Commissioner and Secretary to Government Home Department Chennai - 600 009.2.The Inspector General of Police Law and Order, Chennai - 600 004. 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.4.The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District. ... Petitionersversus1.Asaithambi2.The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai - 600 104....RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling forthe records related to the order dated 24.01.2003 made in T.A.No.23of 1992 on the file of the Registrar, Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal, Chennai. For petitioners :Mr.M.DhandapaniSpecial Government Pleader For respondent-1 : Mr.P.T.Ravichandran for M/s. Sathish Parasaran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.)The first respondent is a Police Constable. He was workingin the Tirunelveli Town police station. He was a tenant in thepremises belonging to one Palanichamy Thevar. On 25.01.1982, thesaid Palanichamy Thevar along with his family members went toTiruchendur Temple for darshan of lord Muruga. There, one Annavi @Muthusubramanian offered to assist the family of the said PalanichamyThevar to perform the archana services. After worship, they left thetemple. Later, they found that the gold chain on the child wasmissing. The said Palanichamy Thevar complained the same to theTiruchendur Police Station. Based on the complaint, the said Annaviwas taken to the Police Station, wherein he was beaten. He was takento some un-known place and was beaten by four un-known persons. Hewas also taken to Tirunelveli. He was again brought back toTiruchendur Police Station on 28.01.1982. 2.The complaint given by the father of the said Annaviabout the illegal detention and torture was enquired into by theRevenue Divisional Officer at the instance of the District Collector.Based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, a charge memodated 07.04.1984 was issued against the first respondent by theDeputy Superintendent of Police, Srivaikuntam. Two charges wereframed against the first respondent and the same are as follows:"i.Gross misconduct in having abused policeauthority by making personal investigation into analleged of complaint of theft against Tiruchendurtemple "archakar" Annavi @ Muthusubramanian, in orderto favour his house-owner from 26.01.1982 to28.01.1982.ii) Reprehensible conduct in having assaulted andtortured Annavi @ Muthusubramanian between 26.01.1982to 28.01.1982".3.However, the Enquiry Officer found the charge No.1 asproved and the charge No.2 as not proved. 4.The disciplinary authority dismissed the first respondentfrom service by an order dated 08.12.1984 disagreeing with thefindings of the Enquiry Officer on charge No.2 and holding that boththe charges are proved. 5.The appeal preferred by the first respondent dated05.01.1986 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated11.06.1985. However, the Appellate Authority held that the charge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.2 was not established. The Revision preferred by the firstrespondent was dismissed by an order dated 15.12.1985. MercyPetition filed by the first respondent before the first petitionerwas also dismissed in G.O.Ms.No.1423, Home (Pol.VII) Department,dated 03.06.1986. 6.The first respondent thereafter filed Writ Petition inW.P.No.198 of 1988 to quash the dismissal order. The writ petitionwas transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and thesame was taken on file in Transfer Application No.23 of 1992.7.The Tribunal, passed an order dated 24.01.2003, holdingthat the charge No.1 was also not established and thus there is nobasis for imposing penalty. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed thepetitioners herein, to reinstate the first respondent in service andgranted all wages and other monetary benefits for the period of hisun-employment. 8.The present writ petition is filed against the orderdated 24.01.2003 passed in Tr.A.No.23 of 1992 by the Tribunal. 9.Heard both sides. We have perused the entire materialson record. 10.The learned Special Government Pleader strenuouslycontended that the Tribunal re-appreciated the evidence and recordeda finding that the charge No.1 was not established. He furthersubmits that there is enough evidence to show that the firstrespondent abused the Police authority by making personalinvestigation into the complaint of theft against archagar Annavi inorder to favour his house-owner from 26.01.1982 to 28.01.1982 andproduced the entire file for perusal. The crux of his argument isthat though there was no evidence to show that he had beaten the saidAnnavi, he interfered in the investigation to favour his house-ownerand thereby abused his authorities as a police personnel. 11.The learned counsel for the first respondent submittedthat the Tribunal passed a well considered and detailed order. Heheavily relied on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and he pointedout that except the concluding paragraph, the Enquiry Officerrecorded findings on various aspects in favour of the defence. Hepointed out that while the said Annavi made a written complaint, hedid not implicate the first respondent, while he implicated theInspector, Sub-Inspector and Head Constable of Tiruchendur PoliceStation. He further submits that even during enquiry, the saidAnnavi did not name the first respondent as a person who had beatenhim. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.It is true that the report of the Enquiry Officer runsto several pages and almost the entire discussion is in favour of thefirst respondent. Even, the Enquiry Officer recorded that it was thesaid Palanichamy Thevar who brought the Annavi from Tiruchendur toTirunelveli. Further, the Enquiry Officer found fault with firstrespondent by only stating that the first respondent being PoliceConstable, he could have reported the matter at Tirunelveli and hedid not do so and instead the first respondent accompaniedPalanichamy Thevar along with Annavi from Tirunelveli to TiruchendurTown Police Station. This was the reason for holding the charge No.1proved. 13.The learned counsel for the first respondent argued thatsince the entire discussion was in favour of the defence, theconclusion and the reasons stated in the last but one paragraph hasto be rejected. He further argued that the police officers named byAnnavi as having beaten him were not proceeded with. It was furtherargued that he has been without employment for the past 25 years from1984. 14.Taking into account the above facts, we are inclined tosustain the order of the Tribunal in so far as the reinstatement isconcerned and to deny backwages for a substantial period, as we areof the view that though the first charge as framed is not made outand however, it could not be said that he did not favour the landlordin the matter relating to Annavi, for which he should not be rewardedwages for 25 years. 15.However, during the course of hearing, the learnedcounsel for the first respondent fairly submitted that backwages neednot be paid for the entire period, but it may be paid from the dateof order of the Tribunal passed in Tr.A.No.23 of 1992 i.e.24.01.2003. He further submitted that the first respondent should bedeemed to be in service for the entire period of non-employment so asto count the service for seniority, fixation of pay, pensionary andother benefits. 16.In these circumstances, the order dated 24.01.2003passed in Tr.A.No.23 of 1992 by the Tribunal is modified and thepetitioners are directed to reinstate the first respondent inservice within a period of two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this order and to pay him wages from 24.01.2003 till the dateof reinstatement and the entire period of non-employment will be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ treated as services for purpose of seniority, fixation of pay,pensionary and other benefits. The writ petition is accordinglydisposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTKTo1.The Commissioner and Government of Tamil Nadu Secretary to Government Home Department Chennai - 600 009.2.The Inspector General of Police Law and Order Chennai - 600 004. 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.4.The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District. 1 cc To Mr.Satish Parasaran, Advocate, SR.16152.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.16291.W.P.No.4805 of 2008 RSI(CO)RVL 30.04.2009