M.Sivaraman v. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.03.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.30529 OF 2006M.Sivaraman.. PetitionerVs.1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras-600 009.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore.3.The Inspector General of Police (Law and Order), Madras-4.4.The Superintendent of Police, North Arcot District at Vellore... Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the firstrespondent in G.O.(3D) No.2, dated 7.11.1990 and to set aside thesame and consequently, to direct the respondents to award allconsequential service benefits due to the applicant. For Petitioner : Mr.A.SivajiFor Respondents: Mr.P.Gurunathan, GA ORDERThe petitioner filed O.A.No.6607 of 1997, challenging an orderof punishment given to him, by which he was reduced in rank for aperiod of one year and also treating the period of suspension asleave subject to his eligibility.2.The petitioner was chargesheeted under rule 3(b) of the TamilNadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, by a charge memorandum, dated14.8.87. The charge against the petitioner was that he demandedillegal gratification from one Arumugam, S/o.Dharma Gounder ofSirumer Village on 13.7.87, while he was on medical leave in thevillage. The second charge was his reprehensible conduct of bringingthe said Arumugam to Arni Taluk Police Station on 13.7.87 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detaining him unlawfully. An enquiry was conducted by the DeputySuperintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. Both the charges were foundproved by the Enquiry Officer.3.It was thereafter, the fourth respondent agreeing with thecharge memo, found the petitioner guilty and imposed a punishment ofreduction of the petitioner from the post of Head Constable to thatof Grade I Police Constable for one year. The suspension was revokedand the period of suspension was treated as an extraordinary leave.Subsequently, after giving show cause notice, the period ofsuspension was regulated. The petitioner filed an appeal to thesecond respondent, the appellate authority. The second respondentfound that charge No.2 alone was proved and for charge No.1, therewas no evidence. But even for the proved second charge, the gravityof misconduct was so severe and hence he found that the punishmentwas adequate. 4.Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review to the thirdrespondent. The third respondent, agreeing with the appellateauthority, held that there was no procedural irregularity in theenquiry and the punishment awarded was not excessive. The petitionerfurther submitted a memorial to the State Government, which was alsorejected by the Government in G.O.(3D)No.2, Home Department, dated7.11.1990. Even though a punishment was imposed by the order, dated25.11.1987 and the last memorial was rejected in November, 1990, thepetitioner did not move the Tribunal and instead, chose to move theTribunal after a period of 4 years. In doing so, there was a delay of736 days in filing an application. The Tribunal, without assigningany reason, allowed the miscellaneous petition No.2984 of 2000 andnumbered the O.A. This was despite the protest from the respondentsthat there was no justification in condoning the delay.5.In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stoodtransferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.30529 of 2006. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thoughthe punishing authority found both the charges proved, the appellateauthority held only one charge proved. Therefore, the reviewingauthority and the Government, while considering the petitioner'srequest, did not bear in mind the exoneration of the first charge,but simply held that both the charges were proved. This will vitiatethe orders passed by the first and third respondents. 7.In this context, the learned counsel relied on the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem and othersVs. Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 3 SCC 469. It is stated in thesaid judgment that the appellate and revisional authority arerequired to give reasons, so that the charged employee is entitled toknow the mind of the authorities. He also relied on the judgment ofthis court in S.Subbiah Pandian Vs. The Superintendent of Police,Tirunelveli reported in 2009 (1) C.L.T. 45 to drive home the pointthat in the absence of any legal evidence, the court cannot hold thepetitioner guilty of charges. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India and anotherreported in 2008 (3) SCC 484. This was for the purpose of showingthat while relevant evidence must be taken into account, irrelevantevidence should be excluded and that proportionality of punishmentcan be gone into by the court.9.With reference to the first contention, though the reviewingauthority in the narration of the facts had stated that two chargeswere proved, but in the operative portion, he had clearly stated thatthe punishment awarded was not excessive and it is just. The StateGovernment had also stated that there was no necessity to interferewith the action taken by the appellate authority. It cannot be saidin the present case that there was no enquiry against the petitionerwith reference to bringing the party from the village, while he wason leave. Though the witnesses have gone back on their statements,yet the circumstantial evidence shows that the incident had takenplace as alleged by the prosecution. Attributing of motive against ananother officer has not been proved. 10.The Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer's case, citedsupra, had stated as follows:"20.It is no doubt also true that an appellate orrevisional authority is not required to give detailedreasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by thelower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice,the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least themind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissinghis appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailedreasons are required to be given, but some brief reasonsshould be indicated even in an order affirming the views ofthe lower forum."11.In the light of the above, it cannot be said that theauthorities' orders, especially the reviewing authority's order isbereft of reasons. Inasmuch as there is legal evidence let in andconsidering the gravity of charges, it cannot be said that it iseither disproportionate or unjust. Even at the time of filing of theO.A., the petitioner was 42 years old and will be reaching the age ofsuperannuation. 12.In the light of the above, there is no case made out by thepetitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/- Asst. Registrar / True Copy / Sub.Asst Registrar vvk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Madras-600 009.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore.3.The Inspector General of Police (Law and Order), Madras-4.4.The Superintendent of Police, North Arcot District at Vellore.+ 1 CC to Mr.A.Sivaji,Advocate,SR.9338+ 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.9215W.P.NO.30529 OF 2006SRS(CO)EM/25.5.09