R. Kannan... v. Deputy Inspector General of Police Trichy Range & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.03.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMARWRIT PETITION NO.43174 OF 2006R. Kannan... PetitionerVs.

Deputy Inspector General of Police Trichy Range Trichy – 620 001.

Superintendent of Police District Police Office Karur.

Deputy Superintendent of Police Armed Reserve Karur.... RespondentsThis writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer ofO.A.No.1805 of 1999 from the file of the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal, Chennai, praying this Court to quash the impugned orderspassed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings inC.No.F1/PR.12/98, dated 18.8.1998 and confirmed by the firstrespondent herein in his proceedings C.No.B2/AP.73/98, dated10.12.1998 with all consequential service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : No AppearanceFor Respondents : Mr. P. Subramanian, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E RThe prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order passed bythe second respondent dated 18.8.1998 confirmed by the firstrespondent in his proceedings dated 10.12.1998 with all consequentialservice and monetary benefits.2. By the impugned order passed by the second respondent, thepetitioner, who is working as a Police Constable, Armed Reserve, Karur is imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for oneyear without cumulative effect on the charge of his highly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reprehensible conduct in having assaulted Police Constable(P.C.No.3091) named Murugan on 24.3.1998 at 21.30 hours and causedbleeding injuries on his lips and thereby involved in Vangal PoliceStation Crime No.179 of 1998 under Sections 341 and 323 of the IndianPenal Code. The said order is challenged on the ground that he wasserved with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu PoliceSubordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafterreferred to as the "Rules) by the first respondent on 10.4.1998 bystating the above said charge and by proceedings dated 15.4.1998, thepetitioner was given seven days' time to submit his explanation tothe above charge and before receiving the explanation, the EnquiryOfficer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer, who is the thirdrespondent directed the petitioner to appear for oral enquiry on21.4.1998 and therefore, there is a violation of statutory rule under Rule 3(b) of the Rules. 3. The second ground of attack is that the Enquiry Officer'sfinding is based on no evidence and depositions were made byprosecution witnesses by giving contradictory statements. TheDisciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority confirmed thefindings of the charge based on the evidence given by P.Ws.1 to 3 andP.Ws.6 to 8, who deposed in favour of the petitioner. The criminalaction initiated for the very same incident by Vangal Police Stationwas dropped on 24.4.1998 and the departmental action was initiatedsubsequently.

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit by stating thatthe petitioner was working in Armed Reserve, Karur and whileperforming Guard Duty at the Camp Office of the Superintendent of Police, Karur on 24.3.1998 at 21.30 hours, the petitioner slapped onthe cheek of P.C.3091 Murugan of Armed Reserve, Karur and causedbleeding injuries on his lips. On the complaint preferred by PC 3091Murugan, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vangal Police Station hasregistered a case in Crime No.179 of 1998 under Sections 341 and 323of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and he sent thevictim to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Karur fortreatment. The Medical Officer gave medical treatment, treated him asan out-patient and issued a Certificate as to that of abrasion of 1cmx 1cm over his upper lip. Since the petitioner was involved in CrimeNo.179 of 1998 on the file of the Vangal Police Station, he wasplaced under suspension with effect from 26.3.1998, by order dated25.3.1998. For the charge memo, the petitioner has not filed anyexplanation and therefore, the enquiry was conducted as per Rules and Regulations. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Karur conducted the enquiry by giving full opportunity to thepetitioner and held that the charge is proved on the basis ofevidence of the prosecution witnesses and prosecution exhibits. The copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was supplied to thepetitioner and his further written representation was also carefullyconsidered by the Appointing Authority, namely, the Superintendent of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Police, Karur. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findingsof the Enquiry Officer and by order dated 17.8.1998, awarded thepunishment of postponement of increment for one year withoutcumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal against thesaid order, which was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector Generalof Police, Tiruchirappalli Range on 10.12.1998, holding that thecharge was amply proved by the Enquiry Officer based on the evidencelet in by P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.Ws.6 to 8 and he has also not given anyfresh points worth consideration.

It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitionerhas not submitted any explanation within seven days. The DeputySuperintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Karur has commenced the oralenquiry on 21.4.1998 i.e. after the expiry of ten days from the dateof receipt of the charge memo. The petitioner has also fullyparticipated in the enquiry without any hesitation and therefore, there is no violation of any statutory provision.

From the above referred pleadings, it is to be ascertainedwhether the charge framed against the petitioner is proved in amanner known to law and the punishment imposed against the petitioneris proportionate to that of the gravity of the charge. It is anadmitted case that for the incident of slapping the Police ConstableMurugan on 24.3.1998 at 21.30 hours, a criminal case in Crime No.179of 1998 under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code wasregistered against the petitioner and based on the registration ofthe criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thesaid criminal case was closed by the Inspector of Police, VangalPolice Station and a report was sent to the Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows: " From Inspector of Police, Vangal P.S.ToThe Superintendent of Police, Karur. Sub:- Vangal P.S. Cr.No.179/1998 under Sections341, 323 IPC.----Respected Sir,I have perused C.D. Carefully and since the InvestigatingOfficer, S.I. of Police, Vangal Police Station has gone on Law https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and Order Bandobust duty at Coimbatore for 10 days. Theaccused is Police Constable and to avoid unnecessary delay inthe case, I am taking suomotu further investigation in thiscase. The accused – Kannan, Cr.I.P.C. 2948, A.R.P.C., is beingdealt departmentally on the same charge under Section Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline &Appeal) Rules, 1955 in P.R.No.12/F/1/98, dated 9.4.1998.Further, the nature of complaint is not so serious toproceed with criminal prosecution against the accused. Sincethe disciplinary action taken against the accused has beenalready initiated on the same charges. Criminal Prosecution onthe same charges will amount to double jeopardy. Hence, I refer the case as further action dropped.INSPECTOR OF POLICE VANGAL."

From the above report of the Inspector of Police addressed tothe Superintendent of Police, it is evident that only because thepetitioner was dealt with departmentally on the same charge under Rule 3(b) of the Rules in P.R.No.12 of 1998, dated 9.4.1998, furtheraction in the criminal case was dropped. It is an admitted case thatthe charge memo dated 9.4.1998 was issued stating as follows: " for having slapped P.C. 3091 Murugan on 24.3.1998 at 21.30hours and caused injury in his lips and thereby involved in Vangal P.S. Cr.No.189/1998 under Sections 341 and 323 IPC."The petitioner was given seven days time to submit his explanation inthe charges. The fact remains that the petitioner has not submittedany explanation within seven days after receipt of the charge memo. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charge, whocommenced enquiry on 21.4.1998 i.e. after the expiry of ten days fromthe date of receipt of the charge memo made on the petitioner. Thepetitioner did not submit his explanation to the charge memo orobject the conducting of enquiry, which commenced on 21.4.1998. Thepetitioner fully participated in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and cross examined all the witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 8.

From the perusal of the Enquiry Officer's Report, it isevident that the fact about the slap made by the petitioner on thelips of the victim Murugan is narrated by the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.Ws.6 to 8. The Medical Certificate issued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Karur was also marked asEx.P1. There is a police case about the very same incident, whichwas registered within ten minutes of the incident in Crime No.179 of1998. The criminal complaint was closed not on 'mistake of fact' buton the ground that the department has already initiated action under Rule 3(b) of the Rules in P.R.No.12 of 1998, dated 9.4.1998. Thefindings of the Enquiry Officer are cogent with reasons and the sameis accepted by the Disciplinary Authority after considering theobjections filed by the petitioner with regard to the EnquiryOfficer's Report.