T.Ambaritcha Maharaja v. Additional Director General of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.09.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.16688 OF 2006ANDWP.MP.NO.1457 OF 2007T.Ambaritcha Maharaja ...PetitionerVs.1. Additional Director General of Police, Chennai 600 004.2. Inspector General of Police, Central Region, Trichy.3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Range, Trichy.4. Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Karur. .... RespondentsThis petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.4174of 2003 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to callfor the records relating to the impugned order passed by the thirdrespondent herein in his proceedings in C.No.B3/Rev.14/2003 dated26.5.2003 and to quash the same with all consequential servicebenefits.For Petitioner: Mr.G.BalaFor Respondents: Mr.V.Arun Additional Government PleaderO R D E R Initially, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.4174 of 2003 on thefile of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ third respondent dated 26.05.2003 and subsequently the same has beentransferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.16688 of2006. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.3. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused.4. Admittedly the petitioner joined the police service asGrade II Police Constable on 13.08.1978 and he was promoted asGrade I Police Constable in the year 1994. In the month of October2001, while he was deputed to District Armed Reserve, Trichy forSpecial Training, a criminal case came to be registered against him inCrime No.234 of 2001 under Section 75 of MCP Act and 4(1)(j) of TNPAct. The petitioner was arrested and released on bail. A certificatewas issued by the Medical Officer to the effect that the petitioner wasnot under the influence of alcohol. An order was passed by theCommissioner of Police, Trichy City on 11.03.2002 dropping the abovecriminal case registered against the petitioner. Accordingly, thecriminal proceedings came to an end. Subsequently, a charge memo wasserved upon him in P.R.43/2002 under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS Rules dated12.06.2002. He has submitted his explanation to the charge memo. But,the fourth respondent, not convinced with the explanation, ordered oralenquiry and appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalaias enquiry officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police hasconducted an enquiry and gave a report stating that the charges framedagainst the petitioner were not proved. Following the same, the fourthrespondent, viz., Superintendent of Police, Karur also passed an orderstating that the enquiry officer has rightly held that the chargesframed against the petitioner were not proved and accordingly, thepetitioner was under the impression that the entire proceedings wereover. While the matter stood thus, the third respondent viz., DeputyInspector General of Police, Trichy Range, Trichy took up the mattersuo motu review and issued show cause notice dissenting with thefindings of the enquiry officer and the decision of the disciplinaryauthority by holding the charges against the petitioner as proved,based on mere presumption and assumption. Under such circumstances, thethird respondent imposed a major punishment of "Compulsory Retirement".Aggrieved over the punishment imposed by the third respondent, thepetitioner submitted an appeal to the second respondent. Since the writpetition has been filed, no order was served upon the petitioner, butan order came to be passed by the first respondent rejecting the appealby an order dated 7.1.2004. Under such circumstances, this writpetition has been brought forth before this Court.5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised twocontentions viz., firstly when there was a criminal case registeredagainst the petitioner under Section 75 MCP Act and 4(1)(j) of TNP Actand the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City had dropped the entireproceedings, since the allegations were found to be false and in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ domestic enquiry conducted, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,Kulithalai was the enquiry officer who on enquiry gave a report thatthe charges framed against the petitioner are not proved and it wasapproved by the fourth respondent viz. the Superintendent of Police,Karur, the matter should have been come to an end. But, the thirdrespondent, viz. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Range,Trichy took up the matter suo motu and he has passed an order, as ifthe charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and he setaside the orders of the authorities below and further imposed thepunishment of compulsory retirement which is illegal and once an orderwas passed by the enquiry officer and approved by the fourthrespondent viz., Superintendent of Police, Karur, there was no reasoneither to take up the matter suo motu or to pass an order of punishmentof compulsory retirement. Secondly, even if it was taken suo motu,notice should have been given to the petitioner calling forexplanation, conduct an enquiry and thereafter only he has to passsuitable orders. But in the instant case, it was not done so. Thus, allwould go to show that the orders passed by the third respondent is notcorrect and the same has got to be set aside .6. Contrary to the above contentions, learned counsel for therespondents would submit that it is true that the enquiry officer, theDeputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai has given a report statingthat the charges not proved and it is also true that it was approved bythe fourth respondent, but the procedure requires that final order hasto be passed by the third respondent, viz.,Deputy Inspector General ofPolice, Trichy Range, Trichy and when the matter was taken up beforethe third respondent, he found that the enquiry officer has passed theorder, based on mere presumption and assumption and hence it has to beset aside. After assessing the evidence available on record, he hastaken the view that the Department has proved the charges levelledagainst the petitioner and further the third respondent has also takeninto account the antecedents of the petitioner that he was suspendedthrice and eleven punishments were given to him, out of which threewere major punishments. Under such circumstances, in the interest ofthe social order, it is not proper to continue the petitioner in thesaid post and hence he thought it fit to pass an order of compulsoryretirement. Hence the order of the third respondent has got to besustained. 7. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the rivalsubmissions made. After looking into the materials available on record.this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of compulsoryretirement has got necessarily to be set aside. It is not incontroversy that the criminal case came to be registered against thepetitioner, when he was deputed to District Armed Reserve, Trichy andsubsequently the Commissioner of Police, Trichy has dropped thecriminal case registered against the petitioner. But,this Court cannotgo into the merit of the matte. It is brought to the notice of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court that the criminal case registered against him was dropped and thesame order was passed in the domestic enquiry. The Deputy Commissionerhas actually conducted enquiry, and passed an order stating that thecharges levelled against him were not proved and thereafter placedbefore the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent also concurred withthe view taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Therefore, thecriminal proceedings came to an end. But, at the same time, theprocedure requires that the matter must be placed before the thirdrespondent for passing final orders. Even assuming so, the thirdrespondent had no material to come to a contrary conclusion from theone taken by the enquiry officer and which was subsequently approved bythe Superintendent of Police. Now. the order which is under challengedoes not speak about the antecedents of the petitioner that he wassuspended thrice and he was imposed with 11 punishments, out of which,three are major punishments, but it was added in the affidavit filed insupport of the petition. In order to sustain the order which wasalready passed by the Department by giving a punishment to a person byadding reasons when the matter is placed before this Court, cannot becountenanced in law. The enquiry officer has given a clear case thatcharges were not proved. Under such circumstances, the order of theenquiry officer that the charges were not proved and subsequentlyaffirmed by the Superintendent of Police, the fourth respondent shouldhave to be sustained by the third respondent. Hence, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that the order of the third respondent is un-called for, in view of the fact that except the charges that werelevelled against him and that was found to be not proved, there is noreason for the Department to impose a punishment of compulsorypunishment. Now, it is brought to the notice of the Court by therespondents that 11 punishments were awarded and out of which, threeare major and the petitioner was suspended thrice, that is why thethird respondent has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement bypassing the final orders. Under such circumstances, before passing thefinal order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner should be given anopportunity, but it was not done so for a long period. Therefore, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that the matter need not be remittedback to the third respondent for the purpose of re-enquiry. In a caselike this where a person was compulsorily retired, his services shouldbe restored . In the absence of the same, the question of sustainingthe order of the third respondent would arise . Hence, the order of thethird respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly set asidewith a direction to reinstate the petitioner herein with allconsequential benefits, as expeditiously as practicable, preferablywithin a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposedof. No costs. Consequently, WP.MP.NO.1457 OF 2007 is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar VJYTo1. Additional Director General of Police, Chennai 600 004.2. Inspector General of Police, Central Region, Trichy.3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy Range, Trichy.4. Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Karur.+1cc to M/s. G.Bala & Daisy Sr 59973+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 60471RL (CO)km/6.10.W.P.NO.16688 OF 2006ANDWMP.NO.1457 OF 2007