The Superintendent of Police,Virudhunagar District,Virudhunagar v. J.Muthiah Selvaraj Head Constable No.677
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The writ petition stands allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. At the relevant point of time, the first respondent was working as Head Constable in Alangulam Police Station. On 12.09.1994, a case inCr.No.125 of 1994 was registered under Section 366 I.P.C. The firstrespondent was entrusted with the task of securing the accused and thekidnapped…
- Para 66. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that while thecriminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a dutythe offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has providedthat the offender should make satisfaction to the public, the…
- Para 77. As far as the State Government's letter dated 10.05.2007 and theconsequential communication of the Collector dated 22.05.2007, we are ofthe considered opinion that the State should have a rethinking on theissue and explore the possibilities of getting necessary fresh legalopinion about the correctness of…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 11.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLAandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANW.P.No.30719 of 2003andW.P.M.P.No.37453 of 2003 The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. .. Petitioner Versus1. J.Muthiah Selvaraj Head Constable No.677, Virudhunagar District.2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai 104. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India toissue a Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal, Chennai, the second respondent herein, dated03.10.2001 in O.A.No.2721 of 1996 and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.M.Dhandapani For respondents : Mr.s.Ilamvaluthi (for R1)
O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.)The superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar is the petitioner. Thechallenge is to the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated03.10.2001 passed in O.A.No.2721 of 1996. By the order impugned in thiswrit petition, the Tribunal set aside the charge memo issued to the firstrespondent in P.R.No.7 of 1996 dated NIL. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
At the relevant point of time, the first respondent was working as Head Constable in Alangulam Police Station. On 12.09.1994, a case inCr.No.125 of 1994 was registered under Section 366 I.P.C. The firstrespondent was entrusted with the task of securing the accused and thekidnapped girl. The girl and the accused were handed over to the firstrespondent by the Ambattur Estate Police on 14.09.1994 evening. Aftertaking into custody the accused and the girl, the first respondent oughtto have brought them straight to Alangulam Police Station and handed overthem to the Sub Inspector of Police for further investigation. But thefirst respondent alleged to have kept them in a house belonging to oneThiru Balasubramaniam the whole of night of 14.09.1994 and then took themto a lodge called Cauvery Lodge on 15.09.1994. Further under the guise ofenquiring the girl, the first respondent molested the girl, while as perthe Rules, the first respondent ought to have secured the presence of alady constable.
Thereafter, the girl was brought to Alangulam PoliceStation only on 16.09.1994. It is for the above said incident, theimpugned charge memo came to be issued in P.R.No.7 of 1996. As the victimgirl, namely Uma, preferred a complaint against the first respondent, acriminal case was lodged before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Courtin C.C.No.217 of 1996. In order to appreciate the allegations against thefirst respondent, it will be appropriate to extract the statement of thevictim Uma, which is to the following effect: "gpwF ,uz;L Ml;nlhtpy; jhd;. uh$% kw; Wk; jiyik fhtyh; bry; tuh$;xU Ml;nlhtpYk;. ntYr;rhkp. knfc&;. Fl;o vd;w ,s";brHpad; K:tUk; ,d;bdhU Ml;nlhtpYk; miHj;Jr; bry; yg; gl; ljhft[k;. v!;nll; oy; cs;s xUyhl;$%f;F brd; wt[ld; jd; id jdpahf tprhhpf;f ntz; Lk; vd;W Twp yhl;;$;U:Kf;F jiyik fhtyh; bry; tuh$; Tg;gpl; ljhft[k;. jhd; mt; thW tukhl; nld; vd;W Twpajw;F ehd; mjpfhhp brhy; Yk; nghJ tuntz; Lk; vd;W tw;g[Wj;jpTwp miHj;Jr; brd; wjhft[k;. m';F xU bts; is ngg; gh; vLj;Jf; bfhz; LeP eifia jpUo vLj;Jf; bfhz;L te;J tpl; lha; vd;W Twp jd; nriyiacUtp. fl; og; gpoj;J Kj;jk; bfhLj;jjhft[k; clnd jhd; mywpajhft[k;. clndyhl;$py; kWgoa[k; fd; dj; jpy; Kj;jk; bfhLj;jjhft[k;. mtiu js; spg; ghh;j;jjhft[k;. jd; dhy; ky; Yf;fl;l Koatpy; iy vd; Wk;. clnd jhd; khkhvd;W fj; jpajhft[k;. clnd jd; khg; gps; is uh$%. fhtyh; ntYr;rhkp btspna ,Ue;jth; fs; te; jjhft[k;. jhd; uh$%tplk; ,e;j Vl;L fl; og; gpoj;J Kj;jk; bfhLj;Jtpl; lhh; eltof; if rhpapy; iy vd;W brhd; djhft[k;. uh$% jiyikf; fhtyhplk; eP';fs; Vd; nriyiag; gpoj;J ,Gj;jPh;fs; vd;W nfl; ljw;F cd; kditpia ehd; xd; Wk; bra; atpy; iyna. mts; nfs; tp nfl; ljw;F ,t;thW bgha; brhy; fpwhs; vd;W brhd; djhft[k;. nkYk; ,tis jdpahfj; jhd; tprhhpf; fntz; Lk; vd;W Twpajhft[k;. clnd yhl;i$ fhyp bra; Jtpl;L kWgoa[k;Ml;nlhtpy; brd; wjhft[k; Twpdhh;/ Ml;nlhtpy; bry; Yk; nghJ jd; mj; ij https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ kfd; nggp tPl;ow;F bry; fpnwhk; vd;W bgha; brhy; yp fhtyh; ntYr;rhkpikj; Jdh; tPl;ow;F miHj;Jr; brd;W tpl; ljhft[k;. m';F brd;w gpd;[g[jhd; Vl;L j';fsplk; bgha; brhy; yp miHj;J te; jJ bjhp[a[bkd; Wk;. mg; nghJntYr;rhkpapd; ikj; Jdh; tPl;oy; ,y;iy vd; Wk;. mtUila kidtp kw; Wk;FHe;ijfs; ,Ue;jjhft[k;. ntYr;rhkp Kjypy; cs; ns brd; wjhft[k;. mtiumtUila ikj; Jdh; kidtp tuntw; wjhft[k; Twpdhh;/ nkYk; Ml;nlhtpy; ,Ue;J ,w';fpat[ld; Vd; nggp tPl;ow;F Tl;og; nghtjhf Twp ,';F Tl;ote; jPh;fs; vd;W ntYr;rhkp fhtyiu nfl; ljw;F jd; id jdpahf tprhhpf; fntz; Lk; vd; Wk;. mj; ij kfd; tPl;ow; Fg; nghfyhk; vd;W brhd; dhy; jhd;. ePtUtha; vd;W Twpajhft[k; ntYr;rrhkp ikj; Jdh; tPl;oy; jd; id[ak; uh$%it[ak;. jiyik fhtyh; bry; tuh$; fLikahf moj;J ,k;rpj; jjhft[k;. ,k;irgz; zqk; nghJ fhtyh; ntYr;rhkpapd; ikj; Jdh; kidtp ghh;j;Jf;bfhz; oUe;jhh;. Mdhy; jLf;ftpy; iy vd; Wk; gpwF me;j bgz; FHe;ijfisTl;of; bfhz;L bkhl; il khof; Fr; brd;W tpl; ljhft[k; ntYr;rhkp. knfc&;. ,s";brHpad; K:tUk; btspna brd;W tpl; ljhft[k;. clnd tPl;oy; cs; jhH;g;ghs; nghl;L tpl; ljhft[k;. gpd; dh; jdpj; jdpahf tprhhpf;f ntz; Lk; vd;W Twp m';Fcs;s miwapy; uh$%it moj;J cs; ns js; sp btspna g{l;L nghl; Ltpl; ljhft[k;.jiyik fhtyUk; jhDk; kl; Lk; m';F ,Ue;jjhft[k;. mg; nghJ jd; Dilanriyia cUtp tpl;L. utpf; ifia fHl;o gpd;[g[wk; ,uz;L iffisa[k;utpf; ifahy; fl;o tpl; ljhft[k; nriyapd; xU jiyg; ig thapy; milj; Jk;. ,d;bdhU jiyg; ig bfhz;L ,uz;L fhypYk; fl;o tpl; ljhft[k;. mjdhy; jd; dhy; jpkpw Koatpy; iy vd; Wk;. clk; gpy; ghthil kl; Lk; ,Ue;jhft[k;Twpdhh;/ nkYk; jhd; if. fhy; fs; fl; lg; gl;l epiyapy; bry; tuh$; jd; nky; gLj;Jf; bfhz; ljhy; jd; dhy; xd; Wk; bra; aKoatpy; iy vd; Wk;. mth; clk; gpy; fyh; $l;o kl; Lk;jhd; ,Ue;jjhft[k;. ghf; fp cilfis fHl;otpl; ljhft[k;. gpwF jd; nky; gLj;Jf; bfhz;L jd; khh; gfj; ij gpoj; jjhft[k;.jd; nky; cUz;ljhft[k;. Kj;jk; bfhLj;jjhft[k;. cd; Dld; cly; cwt[ bfhz; lhy; jhd; rhl; rp fpilf; Fk;. kw;w fhhpa';;fSf;F rhl; rp fpilf; fhJvd;W Twp jd; ,Lg;gpy; ,Ue;j ghthilia fHl;o tpl; ljhft[k; Twpdhh;/nkYk; mth; TWifapy; jd; Dld; cly; cwt[[ bfhs; stpy; iy vd; Wk;. jd; idjd; vjphpy; Mil ,d;wp mk; kzj; Jld; epy; vd;W Twp ghthil mtpH;e;jepiyapy; jd; id epw;f itj;J bfhz; oUe;jjhft[k;. Kjypy; jd; id ,k;irgz; Qqk; nghJ jhd; jLf;f Kad;w nghJ tisay; cile;J tpl; ljhft[k;. fhak; Vw;gl; ljhf[tk;. ifapy; rpfbul; lhy; Rl;ljhft[k;. jd; id fl; og; gpoj;J Kj;jk; bfhLf;Fk; nghJ cjl; il foj; jjhft[k;. mjdhy; jdf;F cjl; oy; fhak; Vw;gl; ljhft[k;. gpwF jdJ cilfis vLj;Jf; bfhLj;J cLj;jpf; bfhs; sbrhd; djhft[k; Twpdhh;/ nkYk; mth; Twifapy; ,';F ele;j ve; jtptu';fisa[k; jd; tPl;Lf;fhuhplnkh.
Ch;f;ffhuh; fsplnkh. tPl;oy; cs; ssth; fsplnkh Twf; TlhJ vd; Wk;. Twpdhy; capnuhL tplnkhl; nld; vd;W https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Twpajhft[k;. gpwF fjit jpwe;J tpl; ljhft[k;. jd; tPl;Lf;fhuiu milj; jpUe;jfjit[ak; jpwe;J tpl; ljhft[k; bjhptpj; jhh;/ nkYk; jiyikf; fhtyh; jd; ideph; thzg; gLj;jpaij[ak; fl;o Kj;jk; bfhLj;jija[k;. cjl; oy; fhag; gLj;jpdija[k;. jd; id moj; jija[k;. jd; nky; $l;oa[ld; gLj;Jg; g[uz; lija[k; jhd; gae;J bfhz;L btspapy; brhy; ytpy; iy vd; Wk;. jd; id ntYr;rhkp ikj; Jdh; tPl;oy; khdg';fk; bra;[ak; nghJ ,ut[ Rkhh; kzp 08/30 ,Uf;Fk; vd; Wk;.tpahHf;fpHik vd; Wk;. Mdhy; njjp bjhpahJ vd; Wk; Twpdhh;/"The criminal case ended in an acquittal. The appeal preferred by the State in Crl.A.No.997 of 1999 was also dismissed. It is in the above saidbackground the first respondent moved the State Administrative Tribunal byfiling O.A.No.2721 of 1996 and sought for a relief that the charge memo inP.R.No.7 of 19976 should be set aside.
By the order impugned in this writpetition, the Tribunal solely on the ground that the criminal Courtacquitted the first respondent held that no useful purpose would be servedin the departmental action and so holding, set aside the charge memo. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writpetition.
Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing forthe petitioner took us through the statement of the victim girl as well ascertain other persons who were present on the fateful days 14.04.1994 and15.04.1994, when the first respondent was alleged to have committed theatrocities on the victim girl Uma as well as the accused against whom thecase in Cr.No.125 of 1994 was registered in the Alangulam Police Stationand submitted that for the atrocious behaviour alleged to have beencommitted by the first respondent, the Tribunal ought to have treated thecase differently instead of merely stating that based on the acquittalordered by the criminal court, the whole proceedings should be droppedagainst the first respondent. According to the learned Special GovernmentPleader, depending upon the grave allegations levelled against the firstrespondent and the fact that the degree of proof required in thedepartmental proceedings are not so very stringent as that of a criminalproceedings, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the chargememo issued to the first respondent.
As against the above submission, Mr.Ilamvaluthi, learned counselappearing for the first respondent brought to our notice a letter nowissued by the State Government dated 10.05.2007 as well as theconsequential communication issued by the District Collector, Virudhunagarto the petitioner dated 22.05.2007, wherein, the State Government hasexpressed its decision to drop further action in the criminal prosecutionordered against the first respondent since the criminal appeal filed in Crl.A.No.997 of 1999 has been dismissed by this Court. The learnedcounsel therefore contended that when the State Government itself hastaken such a conscious decision not to proceed with the criminalprosecution which has already ended in acquittal in favour of the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, in the same breath, the impugned order of the Tribunal inhaving set aside the charge memo issued by the first respondent should notalso be interfered with. The learned counsel then contended that thefirst respondent is likely to retire in the month of October 2007 andtherefore, at the fag end of his career the revival of the departmentalaction would cause serious prejudice to the first respondent. The learnedcounsel therefore contended that the writ petition deserves to bedismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties andon a perusal of the material papers placed before us, we are of the viewthat the conclusion of the Tribunal in having set aside the charge memo onthe sole ground that the criminal case has ended in acquittal cannot beaccepted. In this context, it will be worthwhile to refer to therecent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (3)CTC 211 [NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. vs. NOIDA and others]. The Hon'bleSupreme Court, after referring to the earlier decisions reported in2004 (7) SCC 442 [Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v.T.Srinivas], 2005(10)SCC 471 [Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Sarvesh Berry], 2006(6)SCC 366 [Uttaranchal Road TransportCorpn. vs. Mansaram Nainwal], 1997(2)SCC 699 [Depot Manager, A.P.StateRoad Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others], 1996(6)SCC417 [State of Rajasthan v.
B.K.Meena and others], 1999(3)SCC 679 [Capt.M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.] has laid down the ratio inparagraph Nos.16 and 22 of its order, which reads as under: "16. The purpose of Departmental Enquiry and of prosecutionis two different and distinct aspects. The Criminal prosecutionis launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offenderowes to the society, or for breach of which law has providedthat the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. Socrime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omissionof public duty. The Departmental enquiry is to maintaindiscipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Itwould, therefore, be expedient that the Disciplinary proceedingsare conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It isnot, therefore, desirable to lay down any guideline asinflexible rules in which the Departmental proceedings may ormay not be stayed pending trial in Criminal case against thedelinquent officer.
Each case requires to be considered in thebackdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be nobar to proceed simultaneously with Departmental enquiry andtrial of a Criminal case unless the charge in the Criminal Trialis of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact andlaw. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ distinguished from mere private rights punishable under Criminallaw. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should bein accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidencedefined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872(in short the 'Evidence Act'). Converse is the case of Departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a Departmental proceedingsrelates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officerto punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevantstatutory rules or law.
That the strict standard of proof orapplicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settledlegal position. Under these circumstances, what is required tobe seen is whether the Department enquiry would seriouslyprejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in aCriminal case. It is always a question of fact to be consideredin each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. "22. The standard of proof required in Departmentalproceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminalcharge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminalproceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. Thatbeing so, the order of the State Government deciding not tocontinue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and isquashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue. ...."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that while thecriminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a dutythe offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has providedthat the offender should make satisfaction to the public, the departmentalenquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of publicservice. The Supreme Court therefore held that it is always expedientthat the disciplinary proceedings should be conducted and completed asexpeditiously as possible. In fact, in paragraph No.22, the Hon'bleSupreme Court has laid down the law to the clear effect that even ifthere is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings, the same will not barthe initiation of departmental proceedings. It is by now well settled thatin the departmental proceedings, what is required is preponderance ofprobability, while in the criminal case the guilt is to be proved beyondreasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case like this, where the HeadConstable with whom the custody of a girl was entrusted and when it isalleged that during such custody, the Head Constable outraged the modestyof the girl to the maximum possible extent by taking her to a lodge thattoo without women escort police, it will not be in the interest ofjustice to state that in respect of the very same occurrence the criminalcase ended in acquittal and therefore, the departmental proceedings should https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be simply closed. If such a straight jacket formula is applied, it willhave to be held that it will result in miscarriage of justice which cannotbe approved of by the Court of law. The Tribunal should have thereforeexamined the position in the proper perspective instead of holding that inview of the acquittal by the criminal Court, the departmental actionshould be straight away concluded. For the above stated reasons, we areunable to sustain the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside theorder impugned in this writ petition and direct the petitioner to proceedwith the departmental action to its logical end by reviving the chargememo in P.R.No.7 of 1996 issued to the first respondent.
As far as the State Government's letter dated 10.05.2007 and theconsequential communication of the Collector dated 22.05.2007, we are ofthe considered opinion that the State should have a rethinking on theissue and explore the possibilities of getting necessary fresh legalopinion about the correctness of the acquittal ordered on the ground ofdelay in preferring the FIR and work out the remedies in the manner knownto law. We say so in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in 2006(3)Crimes 293(SC) [Dildar Singh vs. State of Punjab],wherein it has been held that in such cases, where the victim is a haplesswomen, delay in preferring the FIR will not be fatal to the prosecution.
Operative part
The writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The charge memo in P.R.No.7 of 1996 shall berestored to file for being proceeded with against the first respondent inaccordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed.gmsSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. + One cc to Mr. S.Ilamvaludhi, Advocate SR 43279+ One cc to Govt Pleader SR 42098.SSK (co)sg 27/7/07 W.P.No.30719 of 200311.07.2007
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 366; Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 11 Jul 2007. The bench was F M IBRAHIM KALIFULLA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.