J. Mahaboob Khan v. Chennai – 600 004.2. Inspector General of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate:- 20.09.2007 CoramThe Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAMW.P. Nos.26808 to 26811 of 2004andW.P.M.P. Nos.2214 to 2217 of 2007J. Mahaboob Khan... Petitioner in W.P. No.26808/2004A.V. Ravindran... Petitioner in W.P. No.26809/2004A. Kannappan... Petitioner in W.P. No.26810/2004M. Sadhurudeen... Petitioner in W.P. No.26811/2004..vs..1. The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004.2. Inspector General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai – 600 004.3. The Deputy InspectorGeneral of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore.4. The Superintendent of Police, Salem.... Respondents in all W.Ps.Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for therecords relating to the orders passed by the third respondent inPro.C.Nos.B1/PR44/98, B1/PR45/98, B1/PR52/98, B1/PR46/98 respectivelydated 29.11.1998, the second respondent in Pro.Rc.No.65486/AP2(2)/99dated 26.5.1999 (WP 26808/04), 65489/AP2(2)/99 dated 21.5.1999(WP26809/04) respectively, the first respondent in No. 200178/AP.2(2)/2002 dated 30.5.2003 (WP 26808/04) and quash the same and issueconsequential direction to the respondents to regularize the periodof suspension from 29.11.1996 to 01.05.1997 as duty and grantconsequential service and monetary benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr. M. Ravi For Respondents : Mr. V. Arun, Addl. Govt. PleaderCOMMON ORDERThe present writ petitions have been brought forth by thepetitioners seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, toquash the orders passed by the third respondent inPro.C.Nos.B1/PR44/98, B1/PR45/98, B1/PR52/98, B1/PR46/98 respectivelydated 29.11.1998, the second respondent in Pro.Rc.No.65486/AP2(2)/99dated 26.5.1999, 65489/AP2(2)/99 dated 21.5.1999 respectively, thefirst respondent in No. 200178/AP.2(2)/2002 dated 30.5.2003 and todirect the respondents to regularize the period of suspension from29.11.1996 to 01.05.1997 as duty and grant consequential service andmonetary benefits.2. Affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions alongwith counter affidavits are perused. The Court heard the learnedcounsel appearing on either side.3. The following facts, which were emerged in short, areadmitted facts:-(i) When these petitioners were served as Police ConstablesGrade I in Mallikarai Police station and Mallur Police Stationrespectively during relevant time, the fourth respondent initiatedproceedings against them under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu PoliceSubordinate Service (D.&A. Rules). All of them were kept undersuspension by the fourth respondent. The charge against them isgross neglect of duty in having failed to watch illicit activities ofBootleggers to collect and furnish information to the Inspector ofPolice, Kondalampatti circle about the selling of illicit arrack,which resulted in the death of two persons, after consuming illicitarrack sold by one Nachayee on 28.11.1996. (ii) Explanations were called for from the petitioners.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Salem, whoconducted enquiry, filed an enquiry report, where he found that thecharges framed against the petitioners were not proved. But thethird respondent did not agree with the findings of the EnquiryOfficer and he did not even consider the representations submitted bythe petitioners and he has taken a view that charges were provedagainst the petitioners and imposed the punishment of reduction in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the time scale of pay by one stage for one year with cumulativeeffect.(iii) Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners preferred anappeal before the second respondent, who rejected the same withregard to petitioners in W.P. Nos.26808 and 26809 of 2004respectively, but no orders are passed with regard to petitioners inW.P. Nos.26810 and 26811 of 2004 respectively. Under thecircumstances, some of them took the matter before the AdministrativeTribunal and filed O.A. Nos.7654 to 7657 of 1999 and theAdministrative Tribunal, on enquiry, allowed the said appeals andrecorded a finding that charges were not proved and the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer was correct and the same was to be sustained.(iv) Thereafter, the petitioners made representations tothe first respondent to consider their case, since they are equallyplaced with that of other delinquents, who filed O.As. before theAdministrative Tribunal, but their representations have beenrejected. Under such circumstances, the petitioners were compelledto file the present writ petitions before this Court.4. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel forthe petitioners is that these petitioners along with twelve othersincluding two Head Constables, one Inspector of Police were issuedwith the same charge memo. The Enquiry Officer, after detailedenquiry, given a finding that charges were not proved. But, withoutany reason whatsoever, the third respondent disagreed with the saidfindings and imposed the punishment. When the appeals were filed,the same were not considered. It is pertinent to point out that someof them filed O.As. before the Administrative Tribunal, where theorder passed by the third respondent imposing punishment was actuallyset aside and the finding of the Enquiry Officer was found to becorrect. Hence, the petitioners, who are also equally placed withother delinquents, should be given same benefit, but the same was notdone by the Department. Hence the writ petitions have got to beallowed.5. The Court heard the learned Additional GovernmentPleader appearing for the respondents.6. After careful consideration of submissions made byeither side, the Court is of the considered opinion that all thesewrit petitions have got to be ordered. It is not in controversy thatthese petitioners along with two Head Constables and one Inspector ofPolice were issued with a charge sheet referred to above. While theEnquiry Officer has given a finding that charges were not proved,there was no reason for the third respondent to take a differentview. When the third respondent imposed the punishment, theypreferred an appeal before the second respondent, who has outrightly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rejected the same without considering any of the aspects. Aggrievedover the same, some of the delinquents took it on appeal before theAdministrative Tribunal. It has given an elaborate order, givingreasons and found that the Enquiry Officer was perfectly correct inrendering a finding that the charges were not proved. There was noreason either for the third respondent to disagree with the findingsof the Enquiry Officer or for the second respondent to confirm theorder passed by the third respondent.7. Apart from this, the crowning circumstance is that afterorders were passed by the Tribunal, when the petitioners maderepresentations, stating that they are also equally placed with thatof other delinquents, who filed appeals and obtained orders bysetting aside the charge framed against them, the same were notconsidered. The Court is unable to notice as to why discriminationwas shown to the petitioners in respect of same charges framedagainst all the delinquents and the Enquiry Officer found thatcharges were not proved against all the delinquents. Hence theorders passed by the respondents are set aside and the writ petitionsare ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. areclosed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarssa.To1. The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004.2. Inspector General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai – 600 004.3. The Deputy InspectorGeneral of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The Superintendent of Police, Salem.+4ccs to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate Sr 59004+4ccs to Govt. Pleader Sr 59074 to 59077NSM (CO)km/4.10.W.P. Nos.26808 to 26811 of 2004 andconnected W.P.M.Ps.