V. Subramanian v. The Inspector General of Police & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09-09-2009CoramTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRUW.P. No. 24033 of 2006(OA.2299/98)V. Subramanian.. PetitionerVersus1. The Inspector General of Police L & O Chennai – 600 0022. The Dy. Inspector General of Police Chengalpet Range Chengalpet.. RespondentsOA No. 2299 of 1998 filed before the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No.24033 of 2006, which was filed praying to call for the recordsrelating to the order of the first respondent made in Rc.No.API(2)/112991/97 dated 31.07.1997 and quash the same and consequently extendall benefits both service and monetary.For Petitioner :Mr. L. ChandrakumarFor Respondents :Mr. R. NeelakandanGovernment Advocate ORDERThe petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police attached toAirport Security, Meenambakkam. A charge memo under Rule 3 (b) wasframed against the petitioner containing three charges. The firstcharge was that the petitioner received cash of Rs.1,000/- from thecomplainant K.Manivannan to register a case in Ambattur PS Crime No.1706 of 2004 under Section 380 of IPC on 26.08.1994. The secondcharge was in respect of gross negligence of duty in not registering acase under Section 182 of Cr.P.C. for seizure of Hero Honda MotorCycle and handing over to Ashok Nagar Police Station for showingrecovery in Ashok Nagar P.S. Cr.No. 213 of 1995 under Section 457 &380 IPC registered on 23.02.1995. The third charge relates to grossneglect of duty in not registering a cycle accident case occurred on19.01.1995 and registering the case on 08.03.1995 in Ambattur P.S.Cr.No. 187 of 1995 under Section 279 & 377 IPC after a lapse of 48days and failure to register a robbery case on 07.03.1995 on thereport given by one Muthukrishnan.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Poonamallee Sub-Division was appointed as an enquiry officer, who, after conductingenquiry found that the petitioner was guilty of the first misconduct. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ With reference to second and third charges, not guilty report wasfurnished. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpet Range,accepting the report of the enquiry officer ordered for compulsoryretirement of the petitioner from service from the date of the ordernamely 15.04.1997. The petitioner filed statutory appeal to the firstrespondent. The first respondent, gave the benefit of doubt to thepetitioner with reference to demand of Rs.1,000/- as bribe forregistering a case under Section 380 of IPC on the ground that therewas an enormous delay in making such allegations as the delay was oneyear and there was no corroborating evidence to support receipt ofmoney. With reference to delay in registering the FIR on theallegation of theft, there was 45 days of delay and the reason adducedby the petitioner was not acceptable to the appellate authority andtherefore, in view of the same and on considering the fact that thepetitioner had put in long number of years of service namely 28 yearsand the family circumstance of having three children, one sister andaged mother and the petitioner being the sole bread winner, theappellate authority was convinced that the order of compulsoryretirement as penalty was excessive and therefore taking into accountof the said circumstances modified the punishment into one ofreduction in time scale of pay by four stages for four years withcumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the said modifiedpunishment before the Tribunal. On notice from the Tribunal, thesecond respondent filed a reply affidavit dated 31.03.1999. In viewof the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to thisCourt and re-numbered as WP No. 24033 of 2006.3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for therespondents produced the original files from the appellate authorityfor perusal of this Court. 4.In the reply affidavit dated 31.03.1999 of the secondrespondent, the allegations made by the petitioner relating to theprocedural aspect of the enquiry were totally denied. With referenceto modification of punishment, in para No.7 of the reply affidavit, ithas been averred as follows:-"7.It is also denied that the applicant wassubjected to the enquiry without reasonableopportunity. It is nothing but a figment ofimagination that the disciplinary authorityimposed the penalty of compulsory retirementwithout proper appreciation of facts and evidenceof the case. In fact every point discussed by theenquiry officer was carefully gone through by thepunishing authority and only after he hadsatisfied himself that the enquiry officer hasheld the charges against the applicant as provedbased on the statements of witnesses anddocumentary evidences, the punishing authorityimposed the punishment of compulsory retirement.The appellate authority (first respondent) hasobserved that the allegations were levelledagainst the applicant by the complainant viz.,Manivannan after a delay of one year and in viewof the abnormal delay, he had to take a judiciousview. Hence the appellate authority modified the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ punishment into that of reduction in the timescale of pay by four stages for four years withcumulative effect. It is to be noted that theappellate authority was not at all satisfied withthe submissions made by the applicant, in hisappeal petition. His appeal petition wassympathetically considered in view of the factthat the applicant had stated that he was the onlybread winner of the family having three children,an aged mother and a sister to be looked after.The applicant deserved by the second respondentfor such a grave delinquencies of demand andacceptance of money from the complainant forregistering a case of theft."5.Mr. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner statedthat punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by four stages withcumulative causes great hardship to the petitioner. This Court is notinclined to accept the said submission. This is not a case of noevidence. On the contrary, the appellate authority, though gavebenefit of doubt with reference to acceptance of Rs.1,000/- as bribefor registering the criminal case under Section 380 of IPC, yet foundthere was inordinate delay in registering an FIR.6.Time and again, the Honourable Supreme Court emphasised,including in the latest decision reported in (Praveen Bhatia vs. Unionof India and others) 2009 4 SCC 225 that judicial review overimposition of penalty by the departmental authorities is extremelylimited and the Court can interfere only when the relevant factorswere not taken note of by the authorities. In this case, this Courtdo not see that the appellate authority has failed to consider anyrelevant factors before imposing the modified punishment on thepetitioner.7.In the light of the above, the writ petition standsdismissed. No costs. RshSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The Inspector General of Police L & O Chennai – 600 002 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Dy. Inspector General of Police Chengalpet Range Chengalpet+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.45856WP No. 24033 of 2006MSM(CO)SR/24.9.2009