Chandrakumar Thomas v. Government of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 7-12-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.Nos.17596, 17651 and 19069 of 2006andMP No.1 of 2006 in WP No.17596/2006andMP No.1 of 2006 in WP No.19069/2006Chandrakumar Thomas.. Petitioner in all petitions vs1.Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government Home (Police) Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

The Director General of Police Chennai 600 004... Respondents in WP 17596/2006 and Respondents 1& 2 in WP 17651 & 19069/20063.The Inspector General of Police Law and Order Chennai 600 004. .. 3rd Respondent in WP 17651 and 19069/20064.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Vellore Range, Vellore. 5. The Superintendent of Police Salem. .. Respondents 4 & 5 in WP 17651/20066.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Villupuram Range, Villupuram. .. 4th Respondent in WP 19069/2006WP No.17596/2006 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to include thename of the petitioner in the ensuing panel of Deputy Superintendent of Police, fit for promotion as Additional District Superintendents of Police, in the appropriate place therein and to promote him as such. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP No.17651/2006 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in(1) Govt.

The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side and looked intothe grounds.

The gist of the case of the petitioner in WP 17651/2006 seeking awrit of certiorarified mandamus to quash the punishment awarded to him, isthat the petitioner while he was serving as Inspector of Police at Salem, was served with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu PoliceSubordinate Service (D & A) Rules stating that there was gross neglect ofduty in not controlling rowdyism in Salem Town Police Station limitsduring May 1994 and not arresting 10 accused concerned in Salem TownPolice Station Crime No.606/94 under Sections 363 and 302 of I.P.C. and Crime No.711/94 under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of I.P.C. and therebyenabling them to surrender in the Court of law; that there was grossneglect of duty in not enforcing I.T.P. Act strictly in Salem Town PoliceStation limits during March 1994; that there was a slack supervision andcontrol over his subordinate Grade I PC 1123 Thiyagarajan and failure toreport about his activities to superiors from July to December 1993; thatthere was gross neglect of duty in not enforcing prohibition Act strictlyin Salem Town Police Station limits during July to September 1993; that on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service of the charge memo, he made his explanation; that the Superintendent of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer who enquiredinto the charges and the explanation filed by him; that since theexplanation was not found satisfactory, charges were framed; that the Enquiry Officer, on enquiry and looking into the materials found that thecharges were proved, on the strength of which, a further representationwas also called for; that the same was also submitted; that the DeputyInspector General of Police, Vellore Range, passed the final ordersfinding him guilty and imposed a penalty of reversion in time scale of payby three stages for three years with cumulative effect; that against thesaid order of punishment, he preferred an appeal before the InspectorGeneral of Police (Law and Order), Madras, who by an order dated21.8.1997, reduced the punishment into one of reduction in the time scaleof pay by two stages for one year without cumulative effect; that further, there was an appeal made to the Director General of Police, which was alsorejected; that following the same, he also made a mercy petition which wasalso dismissed, and under the circumstances, he has brought forth thiswrit petition.

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was astrict enforcement of the provisions of the ITP Act in the Salem TownPolice Station limits, and the allegation that there was neglect of dutyin controlling the rowdyism in Salem Town Police Station limits was notcorrect. Added further the learned Counsel that the enforcement ofprohibition Act was strictly done; that under the circumstances, theevidence though in favour of the petitioner, has not been properlyconsidered, and hence, the punishment has got to be quashed.

This Court is of the view that after looking into the materials, the enquiry officer has given a detailed report which was rightly acceptedby the D.I.G., and punishment was also imposed. On appeal, there was areduction in punishment. Now, the contentions put forth by the learnedCounsel for the petitioner, do not merit acceptance. Under thecircumstances, this Court is unable to notice any reason to interfere inthe order, since it is both legally and factually found to be correct. Taking into consideration the charges levelled against him, thoughoriginally, there was reversion in the time scale of pay by three stagesfor three years with cumulative effect, it was subsequently reduced onappeal by the appellate forum into one of reduction in the time scale ofpay by two stages for one year without cumulative effect. This Court is ofthe view that the punishment imposed, is neither unreasonable nordisproportionate. Hence, WP No.17651/2006 does not carry merit, and ithas got to be dismissed.

WP No.19069/2006 is also to quash the punishment accorded to him.A charge memo was served upon him that there was gross neglect of duty andperfunctory investigation of Ammapet Police Station Cr.No.757/93 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C. which paved way for the acquittalof the case on 25.4.1995. When the charge memo was served upon him, hedenied the same by way of an explanation. The Superintendent of Policewas appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry and found thatdue to the neglect of duty on the part of the petitioner, the case endedin acquittal, and under the circumstances, it is a fit case wherepunishment has got to be imposed. Following the report, a furtherrepresentation was called for by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram, and accordingly, he imposed the penalty of reduction in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect. Then, he preferred an appeal. The appeal was rejected. Thereafter, hepreferred a review application, which was also rejected. Under thecircumstances, he has brought forth the above writ petition before this Court.

The only contention of the petitioner's side is that the case didnot end in acquittal in view of any defect in the investigation; that onthe date of investigation, he was not the concerned officer; but, theconcerned Inspector of Police was on leave, and hence, the matter wasentrusted to him for investigation; that with the assistance of one Gopal, the Sub Inspector of Police, he conducted the investigation; that theinvestigation was properly done; that under the circumstances, there wasno reason to find fault with him when there was neither neglect of dutynor gross neglect of duty in carrying out the investigation, and hence, the lower authorities have not considered either the factual or the legalposition and arrived at the conclusion; that the finding of the EnquiryOfficer is not correct, and hence, the punishment has got to be set aside.

After looking into the averments and the submissions made, this Court is able to see that the investigation in Crime No.757/93, a case ofmurder, was entrusted to the petitioner herein. It is also true that onthe relevant date, the Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, wasactually on leave, and the matter was entrusted to him, and he took up theinvestigation. As could be seen from the materials, the inquest reportdid not contain his signature, and that was one of the main reasons whichled to the acquittal of the accused and threw suspicion over theinvestigation process. From the affidavit filed, it could be seen thatactually all the statements under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. were prepared by the Head Constable and by inadvertence, he has not obtained the signature ofthe petitioner in the inquest report, and it is not wanton, but it hastaken place inadvertently, and under the circumstances, it cannot bestated that there was neglect of duty. Now, at this juncture, it ispertinent to point out that while the Court of Session has considered thatthere was no proper investigation and that was one of the main reasons foracquittal and in a case like this where the petitioner was entrusted withthe investigation of a case of murder, he should exercise more vigil andcare in making the investigation. The contention put forth by thepetitioner's side that the inquest report was prepared by the HeadConstable and by inadvertence, he has not obtained the signature of thepetitioner, can, at no stretch of imagination, be accepted as anexplanation. A duty was entrusted to him; but, he has thoroughly failedand that too in a case of murder, which also ended in acquittal because ofthe defective investigation. Under the circumstances, it cannot, but betermed only as gross neglect of duty. While imposing the punishment, theauthority has taken a lenient view. Under the circumstances, there isnothing to interfere in the orders of the authorities below. Hence, WPNo.19069/2006 deserves an order of dismissal.

WP No.17596 of 2006 has been filed seeking for a direction toinclude the name of the petitioner in the promotion panel. The result ofthis petition depends upon the result in the above two writ petitions. Inthe above two writ petitions, the punishments imposed, are found to becorrect, and both are dismissed. Following that dismissal, the petitionercannot have any grievance for non-inclusion of his name in the panel forpromotion. Accordingly, WP No.17596/2006 has got to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/