P.Mokkaraj v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 05-08-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.49451 of 2006(O.A.No.674 of 2001)P.Mokkaraj ..PetitionerVersus1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Inspector General of Police (L&O) Mylapore, Chennai-4.3.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. ..Respondents Prayer: Original Application No.674 of 2001 filed before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the fileof this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.49451 of 2006,seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the recordsrelating to the III and II respondent hereby respectively inP.R.No.216/98 (P.R.No.33/98 of Tirnelveli) passed by the IIIrespondent herein, dated 15.3.1999 and R.C.No.242976/AP.2(1)/99,dated 18.11.1999, passed by the II respondent herein in appeal andquash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein toconfer all the attendant benefits, including, promotion with dueregards to his seniority. For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Anandan for M/s.Anand & SuryaFor Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government PleaderO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioner had joined the police service as a SubInspector of Police, Armed Reserve Unit, in the year 1971.Thereafter, he was promoted, as an Inspector of Police, ArmedReserve, in the year 1987. Later, while he was working at ThallakulamPolice Station, Madurai City, he was served with a charge memo, underRule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, inP.R.No.124/95, containing two charges, which are as follows:"1) Highly reprehensible conduct in having utilisedhis subordinates to collect illegal gratification from thelorry cleaners TNK 6757, KLV 9052 & TN-72 2925, on8.5.1992, at about 20.30 hrs and 20.45 hrs at Melapalayamroad junction in Tirunelveli Nagercoil High Road.2) Highly reprehensible conduct in not havinginspected the lorries TNK 6757, KLV 9052, on 8.5.1992, atabout 20.30 hrs at Melapalayam Road Junction in TirunelveliNagercoil High Road and allowed the lorries to proceedfurther after collection of illegal gratification."3. The charges had been framed based on the statements of oneMariyaiah, District Inspection Cell Officer, Tirunelveli District,who had neither seized the cash claimed to have been collected by thepetitioner from two lorry cleaners, nor had he booked a criminal caseagainst the petitioner and the others, under the Prevention ofCorruption Act. The alleged incident is said to have occurred, on8.5.1992, whereas, the disciplinary action had been initiated in theyear 1995, after a lapse of three years. The charges are vague andambiguous. The delay in framing the charges had not been explained.The P.R.No. under which the charges had been issued had beensubsequently changed as P.R.No.33/98 and then as P.R.No.216/98. 4. The petitioner has further stated that the enquiry officerappointed to conduct the enquiry had held that both the chargesalleged against the petitioner had been proved. The enquiry officerhad rejected the objections raised by the petitioner, with regard tothe addition of witnesses and documents, without any notice to thepetitioner. No reason had been given for the rejection of theobjection. The documents had not been furnished to the petitionerbefore they were relied upon by the enquiry officer. 5. The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner arethat in spite of the fact that the charge memo had mentioned onlyfour witnesses and six documents, more witnesses had been added bythe prosecution and additional documents had been placed forconsideration during the enquiry, without issuing notice to thepetitioner. During the enquiry, statements were read over by theDeputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption andthey were recorded by P.W.2. Eventhough the objections raised by thepetitioner were recorded in the minute copy, they have not been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considered by the enquiry officer before he had come to theconclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner had beenproved. Eventhough two defence witnesses, examined during theenquiry, had stated that the petitioner was not at the place ofoccurrence, the enquiry officer had not given proper weightage to theevidence of the said witnesses. 6. The learned counsel had further submitted that thewitnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution had stated that theyhad seen the incident from a distance of 300 metres, and therefore,it lacks credibility. No action had been taken in respect of thevehicle, which was involved in the incident. The subordinateofficers, who were alleged to have been involved in the incident, atthe behest of the petitioner, had not been examined. The explanationsubmitted by the petitioner at the time of the enquiry had not beenconsidered by the enquiry officer. Based on the enquiry report of thedisciplinary authority, the third respondent herein, had passed anorder, dated 15.3.1999, imposing on the petitioner, the punishment ofreduction in time scale of pay, by three stages, for a period ofthree years, with cumulative effect. Challenging the said order, thepetitioner had preferred a detailed appeal before the appellateauthority, the second respondent herein, raising various grounds.However, the second respondent had passed an order, dated 18.11.1999,dismissing the appeal stating as follows:"2.I have carefully gone through the appeal, alongwith all the connected records. Both the counts of chargehave been held as proved on sufficient and credibleevidence by the disciplinary authority. Indisciplinaryconduct in a disciplined force is a very grave offence,which has been rightly held against the delinquent. Thepunishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is not atall excessive. Moreover, he has not raised any new pointsto consider.3. The appeal is rejected"The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the secondrespondent had passed the impugned order, dated 18.11.1999, rejectingthe appeal, without considering the various grounds raised by thepetitioner in his appeal, dated 7.4.1999. 7. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of therespondents.8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner, and on a perusal of therecords available, even though this Court is of the considered viewthat the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, with regardto the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, in respect of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ charges levelled against the petitioner and the consequential orderpassed by the disciplinary authority, the third respondent herein, on15.3.1999, imposing the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay,by three stages, for a period of three years, with cumulativeeffect, on the petitioner, are not convincing, it is clear that theappellate authority, the second respondent herein, while passing theimpugned order, dated 18.11.1999, had not considered any of thegrounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal, dated 7.4.1999.Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the order ofthe second respondent, dated 18.11.1999, and to remit the matter backto the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, on the appeal ofthe petitioner, dated 7.4.1999, on merits and in accordance with law,within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order,has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The writpetition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Police) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Inspector General of Police (L&O) Mylapore, Chennai-4.3.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.36081.Writ Petition No.49451 of 2006LA (CO)GSK 27.08.2009.