V. Perumal v. The Director General of Police,Chennai-4.2. Commissioner of Police,Chennai-8.3. Deputy Commissioner of Police,Chennai-8.4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 16.11.2005Coram:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K.KRISHNANWrit Petition No.284 of 2003V. Perumal... Petitionervs.1. The Director General of Police,Chennai-4.2. Commissioner of Police,Chennai-8.3. Deputy Commissioner of Police,Chennai-8.4. Deputy Commissioner,H.Q. (A.R.) Chennai-2.5. The Registrar, Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal,Chennai.... RespondentsFor Petitioner: Mr.MurugesanFor R-2 to R-4: Mr.E.Sampath Kumar, Govt. Advocate- - - - -Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for theissuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in R.A.No.53 of 2002 dated 25.10.2002 against O.A. No.6048 of 1996 passedby the 5th respondent against the order of dismissal inTha.ko.No.42/PR 1(3)/94-C.P.O. No.161/94 dated 14.1.1995 passed bythe 3rd respondent, and to quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.). . . . . Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal, Chennai, dated 25.10.2002, made in Review ApplicationNo.53 of 2002 and O.A. No.6048 of 1996, the petitioner has filedthe above Writ Petition to quash both those orders on variousgrounds.2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Grade-IIPolice Constable in Armed Reserve, Madras, on 07.02.1973 andpromoted as Grade-I Police Constable and posted in the ControlRoom, Chennai-600 008. On the allegation that on 12.07.1994 atabout 7.40 a.m. he quarrelled with the Police Officers under theinfluence of alcohol, a criminal case was filed against him underSections 332 and 506(2) of IPC read with Section 4(i)(j) of theProhibition Act. To the same extent, he quarrelled with theInspector of Police and two Sub Inspectors, who were present in theroom of the Assistant Commissioner. After framing charges, anexparte enquiry was conducted without giving opportunity to him.Based on the enquiry, the third respondent, viz., DeputyCommissioner of Police, Chennai–600008, issued a show case noticewhich was challenged in O.A.No.12/95 before the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal. On 24.01.1995, the Tribunal passed anorder directing the third respondent to appoint a fresh EnquiryOfficer. But in the meantime, by order dated 14.01.1995, the thirdrespondent dismissed the petitioner from service. The saiddismissal order was challenged in O.A.No.6048/96. In themeanwhile, the Department filed Review Application No.122/95 toreview the order passed in O.A.No.12/95. Both O.A.No.6048/96 andR.A.No.122/95 were heard and final order was passed by the Tribunaldismissing O.A.No.6048/96 on merits and R.A.No.122/95 asunnecessary. Thereafter the petitioner filed R.A.No.53/2002seeking review of the order passed in O.A.No.6048/96. By orderdated 25.10.2002, the Tribunal dismissed the said ReviewApplication, hence, the present Writ Petition.3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner andlearned Government Advocate for respondents 1-4.4. Mr. Murugesan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, after taking us through the enquiry proceedings, orderof the Original Authority and the orders of the Tribunal, hasraised the following contentions:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a. The petitioner was not affordedadequate opportunity to participate in the enquiry.No attempt was made to serve notice at the addressgiven by him. b. Inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer isrelated to the complainant, the ultimate report ofthe Enquiry Officer is liable to be rejected.c. In any event, the punishment isdisproportionate to the charges levelled againsthim. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate would submitthat notice for enquiry was sent to the address given by thepetitioner and, in fact, he attended the enquiry on one day andthereafter he abandoned the enquiry. He further contended that theEnquiry Officer has submitted his report after intimating thepetitioner at every stage and the contention that the EnquiryOfficer is biased is liable to be rejected. He further contendedthat considering the serious charges levelled against and provedand taking note of the fact that the same was considered by theauthority, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be eitherexcessive or unreasonable. He also contended that all theseaspects having been considered and rejected by the Tribunal, thereis no valid ground for interference. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions.7. Before going into the rival contentions, it is useful torefer the charges levelled against the petitioner. When he camelate on 12.07.1994 and the same was questioned, he disobeyed hissuperior officers and also scolded them in filthy language.Further, when he was asked by another Constable (by name Thangaraj)not to behave in that manner, he pushed him down. He was under theinfluence of alcohol while he was on duty.8. Coming to the first contention raised, it is seen thatnotice for enquiry was sent to the petitioner to the address,namely, No.7, Amsa Garden, 2nd Street, Thiruvottriyur. It is not indispute that the petitioner resides in the said address. It is thegrievance of the petitioner that apart from No.7, the envelopecontains New No.8/2 which according to him is not the correctaddress where he resides. We are unable to accept the saidcontention. As said earlier, the address given by him to theDepartment is No.7, Amsa Garden, 2nd Street, Thiruvottriyur. Whenan attempt was made to serve the notice, the house was foundlocked, due to which, the person who went to serve the noticepasted the same in the said address. Further, it is seen from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ materials placed that proceedings No.42/jgp1(3)(94), dated21.11.1994, was served through a Grade-I Police Constable (hisnumber being 1874) on 22.11.1994. The said notice contains the dateof next hearing as 25.11.1994. In spite of the same, he did notappear on 25.11.1994. In order to give one more opportunity, theenquiry was adjourned to 29.11.1994 and thereafter furtheradjourned to 04.12.1994. In the said intimation, it wasspecifically informed that if the petitioner fails to appear on thenext hearing date, the enquiry would be proceeded without hispresence. Inasmuch as on every occasion, the petitioner was not inhis house and the door was locked, the intimations were pasted inthe house. Further, this aspect was considered by the Tribunal indetail. The discussion of the Tribunal in Paragraph 7 shows thathe participated in the enquiry on one day, i.e., on 29.11.1994.When he was aware of the disciplinary enquiry, it is but proper forhim to ascertain and if he is really interested in contesting thematter, he could have very well attended the enquiry in thesubsequent dates. Fact remains, he did not attend the finalenquiry that was held on 04.12.1994, accordingly, the EnquiryOfficer proceeded with the enquiry and examined the departmentalwitnesses in the absence of the applicant / petitioner herein.Thereafter the Enquiry Officer forwarded copies of the depositionof the witnesses recorded in chief examination and requested thepetitioner to offer his explanation within seven days. Factremains, he did not give his explanation and he did not also askfor cross examination of the witnesses. In such circumstances, asrightly observed by the Tribunal, the Enquiry Officer had no otherway except to finalise the enquiry and submit the report to theDisciplinary Authority. It is also brought to our notice that thecopy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner, askinghis explanation. In such circumstances and in the light of theabundant factual information, we are unable to accept the firstcontention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Onthe other hand, we hold that the petitioner was aware of theenquiry proceedings and he did not utilise the opportunitiesafforded to him by attending the enquiry and putting forth hiscase. 9. Coming to the second contention namely, the EnquiryOfficer is biased since he is related to the complainant, on goingthrough the nature of the charges levelled against the petitionerand the officer who made the complaint and the person who enquiredinto the matter, we do not find any merit in the said contention. 10. Coming to the last contention, namely, that thepunishment is excessive, we have already extracted the chargeslevelled against the petitioner, which are serious in nature. Oneof the charges is that he consumed liquor while he was on duty.The other charges relate to insubordination and also threatening https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the higher officials with dire consequences, forgetting that he isa Police Constable working under them. It is also relevant tonote that in spite of the opportunity afforded to him, thepetitioner did not put forth his case to wriggle out of the chargeslevelled against him. All these relevant factors have beenconsidered by the Original Authority. Though the order does notrefer all the factual details, it cannot be presumed that theOriginal Authority has not taken note of all these materials. TheTribunal has also concluded that the punishment awarded to him isreasonable and cannot be treated as disproportionate. We agree withthe said conclusion.11. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find anyerror or infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal for interference.Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. 16.11.2005.JI.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Director General of Police, Chennai-4.2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai-8.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Chennai-8. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, H.Q. (A.R.) Chennai-2.5. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,Chennai.1 cc to Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan and Mr.R.Murugesan, Advocates,SR.45341la (co)dv/25.11.05W.P. No.284/2003.