M.Shanmugasundaram v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, A.R.II, Chennai City Police, Egmore, Chennai-8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 26-06-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.6558 of 2006(T)O.A.No.249 of 2001M.Shanmugasundaram.. Petitioner.Versus1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,A.R.II, Chennai City Police,Egmore, Chennai-8.2.The Inspector of Police, E-Sec.City Police Office, A.R.Chennai-2... Respondents. Prayer: Original Application No.249 of 2001 filed before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the fileof this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.6558 of 2006,seeking for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of therespondent in connection with the impugned order in PR.No.418/PR2(1)/2000, dated 23.11.2000, served on 21.12.2000, and quash thesame and grant him such other further relief.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani for Mr.M.MuthappanFor Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government Pleader O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Courtmay be pleased to call for and quash the impugned order of thefirst respondent, dated 23.11.2000, made in PR.No.418/PR2(1)/2000,imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period oftwo years, without cumulative effect.3. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered theservice as a Grade-II Police constable of the Chennai City Police,on 14.11.1976. He was promoted as a Head Constable, on 13.5.1984.Later, he was further promoted as a Reserve Sub-Inspector ofPolice, on 1.1.1998. While so, the Director General of Police hadissued a memorandum, dated 12.5.2000, to convene the RangePromotion Board for preparation of `C' list of Head constables fitfor promotion as Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in the year, 1999. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner had challenged it in O.A.No.5197 of 2000. A batch oforiginal applications had also been filed by various persons whowere aggrieved by the said memorandum.4. In spite of the orders of the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal, an order of reversion had been issued to the petitionerby the Commissioner of Police, reverting the petitioner from thepost of Sub-Inspector of Police to that of a Head Constable. Thesaid order had been challenged by the petitioner before theTribunal and an order of stay had been obtained. However, thepetitioner was served with the charge memo in PR.No.418/PR3/2/2000,dated 10.10.2000, alleging that the petitioner had made certainderogatory statements against the higher officials, through hiswife, for not selecting him as a Sub-Inspector of Police in theRange Promotion Board conducted during the month of August, 2000.The petitioner had submitted a reply denying the charges. However,the Inspector of Police, who had enquired into the allegations, hadsubmitted a report stating that the charges levelled against thepetitioner had been proved. Even though the petitioner had not beenfurnished with the copy of the enquiry officer's report, he wasasked to submit a further representation. Based on the report, thedisciplinary authority, the first respondent herein, had imposedthe punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years,without cumulative effect, on the petitioner, by an order, dated23.11.2000. The said order had been served on the petitioner, on21.12.2000.5. The main contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner isarbitrary and illegal. It is in violation of the service rulesapplicable to the petitioner, as well as the principles of naturaljustice. It is a case of no evidence and therefore, the impugnedorder of the first respondent, dated 23.11.2000, is liable to beset aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner had furthersubmitted that the enquiry report had not been furnished to thepetitioner, before he was asked to give a further representation,nor was it given along with the order of punishment, dated23.11.2000. Further, the Inspector of Police is incompetent toissue a charge memo to the petitioner, who was a Sub-Inspector ofPolice at the relevant point of time. The Inspector of Police isnot the disciplinary authority and therefore, the charges levelledagainst the petitioner cannot be sustained, as valid. Thepunishment imposed on the petitioner based on the said chargeswould also be non est in law. 6. It was further contended that the charges levelled againstthe petitioner were vague in nature. The main allegation is thatthe petitioner, through his wife, had made certain allegationsagainst the higher officials of the police department. However,there was no proof to show that the petitioner had instigated hiswife to give a television interview. 7. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of therespondents. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondents had submitted that the charges levelled against thepetitioner had been sufficiently proved. Therefore, the punishmentof stoppage of increment for the period of two years, withoutcumulative effect, had been imposed on him, by an order of thefirst respondent, dated 23.11.2000. Since the petitioner hadinstigated his wife to give a television interview making certainallegations against the higher officials of the police department,the charges had been framed against the petitioner and an enquiryhad been conducted. The enquiry officer had held that the chargeshad been proved. Since making such wild allegations against higherauthorities would lead to indiscipline in the police force, thepetitioner had been imposed with the punishment of stoppage ofincrement, for a period of two years, without cumulative effect. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentswas not in a position to show that the petitioner had induced orprompted his wife to give a television interview making certainallegations against the higher police officials. Even if it wastrue that the petitioner had certain grievances, with regard to hispromotion as a Sub-Inspector of Police and his subsequentreversion, it cannot be said that the television interview given byhis wife was motivated. No proof has been shown to establish thecausal link for this Court to come to the conclusion that thepetitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Further,it could not be shown that sufficient opportunity had been given tothe petitioner to meet the charges levelled against him. Since theenquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner he was notin a position to submit his further report against the proposedpunishment. 9. This Court is of the considered view that if thefundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, enshrined inArticle 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, is to be giveneffect to, in full measure, such a right possessed by the wife ofthe petitioner cannot be curtailed, except in accordance withArticle 19(2) of the Constitution of India. It is also to be noted,at this juncture, that in a democracy, no one can afford to live ina glass house. If certain charges of corruption in high places aremade, such allegations are to be met by those concerned, within theprescribed parameters of the law. One cannot shy away from suchallegations, if there is some substance found in such allegations,unless, such allegations are found to be clearly motivated and madewith the intention of tarnishing the image of those against whomthey are made. No doubt, reasonable restrictions could be imposedby law, on the freedom of speech and expression, enshrined inArticle 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, on the groundsmentioned in Article 19(2). However, in the present case, it hasnot been shown as to how the petitioner was responsible for thevoluntary act of his wife in giving a television interview nor hasit been shown that she had exceeded the limits prescribed by law inexercising her right of fundamental freedom of speech andexpression. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, dated 23.11.2000, is liable to be quashed. Hence, it isquashed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,A.R.II, Chennai City Police,Egmore, Chennai-8.2.The Inspector of Police, E-Sec.City Police Office, A.R.Chennai-2.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.26979Writ Petition No.6558 of 2006SV(CO)SRA(14/7/2009)