1. Disciplinary proceedings against police personnel for extortion and misconduct — removal from service — challenge to the validity of the disciplinary process and findings. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 650
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D P Wadhwa, S C Agarwal
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, APPELLANT;
VERSUS
JAYASURIAN AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2685-2686 of 1997 (Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 3352-52-A of 1994), decided on April 4, 1997.
Important Points
A controlling authority may initiate disciplinary proceedings and issue charge memos even if they are not the appointing authority. Additionally, judicial review should not interfere with a disciplinary authority's appreciation of evidence unless the findings are fundamentally flawed or infirm.
Subject
Disciplinary Proceedings - Police Misconduct
Act Referred
TAMIL NADU POLICE SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES: R.15(a)
Headnote
Quarrel with customs officer - High-handed behaviour in picking up quarrel - Respondents in these appeals were employed as Police Constables in Police Force of the State and were attached to Harbour - They were assigned duty at Ore Berth inside Harbour - On the basis of a complaint made by one, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them on the basis of a charge-sheet containing following two charges, Highly reprehensible conduct in extorting a sum from Utility Steward of TSS Nancowry ship inside Harbour - High-handed behaviour in picking up quarrel with Customs Officer, on same date and time, and abusing him with filthy words near 2-A Gate, Customs Check post – Held, Commissioner of Police, in his order, has dealt with matter and has stated that only contradiction which was pointed out was that in his statement, during preliminary enquiry complainant had referred to the lady accompanying him as his girl-friend, while in his statement before Enquiry Officer he described her as his relative - Commissioner of Police has stated that there is no contradiction in matter of extortion of money by delinquents and that discrepancies pointed out are not vital - Commissioner of Police, after considering statements of PW 1 and PW 2, has expressed view that there was no reason not to accept their evidence - Court have also perused the statements of PW 1 and PW 2 - In court opinion, no infirmity can be found in the approach of Commissioner of Police in appreciation of evidence adduced in enquiry and Tribunal, in exercise of its power of judicial review, was not justified in interfering with t finding of Commissioner of Police that Charge 1 is proved - Court are unable to uphold impugned judgment of the Tribunal - Appeals are accordingly allowed, judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and OAs filed by respondents are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of charge memo issued by non-appointing authority — signature on show-cause notice — opportunity for representation — reliability of evidence used for removal. (Para 5 )
3. Controlling authority may initiate proceedings — show-cause notice signed by competent authority — representations were considered — evidence was sufficient and contradictions were immaterial. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Controlling authority can initiate departmental proceedings regardless of appointing authority's status — judicial review cannot interfere with findings of fact unless evidence is fundamentally unreliable. (Para 7 , 11 )
5. Appeals allowed — Tribunal's judgment set aside — removal from service upheld — emoluments drawn after reinstatement not refundable. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Can an authority other than the appointing authority initiate disciplinary proceedings?
Yes, any superior authority who is the controlling authority can initiate departmental proceedings and issue the charge memo, even if they are not the authority competent to impose the proposed penalty. (Para 7 )
7. Does a show-cause notice signed by a subordinate on behalf of a superior authority invalidate the process?
No, if the superior authority approved and signed the notice, and the subordinate merely attested the fair copy, the notice is considered issued by the competent authority. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. To what extent can a court interfere with the findings of a disciplinary authority regarding the reliability of evidence?
In the exercise of judicial review, a court should not interfere with the findings of a disciplinary authority unless the evidence is factually inconsistent or unreliable to a degree that creates a clear infirmity in the approach. (Para 11 )
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. The respondents in these appeals were employed as Police Constables in the Police Force of the State of Tamil Nadu and were attached to Madras Harbour. On 9-11-1987 they were assigned duty at Ore Berth inside the Harbour. On the basis of a complaint made by one Tome-de-Jesus, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them on the basis of a charge-sheet containing the following two charges :
(i) Highly reprehensible conduct in extorting a sum of Rs. 300 from Thiru Tome-de-Jesus, Utility Steward of TSS Nancowry ship on 9-11-1987 at about 11 p.m. inside Harbour.
(ii) High-handed behaviour in picking up quarrel with Thiru K. Ramdoss, Customs Officer, on the same date and time, and abusing him with filthy words near 2-A Gate, Customs Checkpost.
4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into the charges. After recording evidence the Enquiry Officer found that Charge 1 was established but Charge 2 was not proved against the respondents. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 7-8-1989 for removal of the respondents from service. The said order was set aside by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by judgment dated 13-12-1989 on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the respondents before the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment. Thereafter the matter was again considered by the Disciplinary Authority after furnishing the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the respondents and, by order dated 16-11-1990, the Disciplinary Authority gave the benefit of doubt to both the respondents and dropped the proceedings against them. The Commissioner of Police, in exercise of his power under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955, issued a show-cause notice dated 20-11-1990 wherein he required the respondents to show cause why the punishment of removal from service should not be awarded to them. In the said show-cause notice the Commissioner of Police stated that he did not accept the order of the Disciplinary Authority and he was in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in holding that the first count of the charge is proved. Both the respondents submitted their representations in reply to the said show-cause notice. After considering the same the Commissioner of Police passed the orders dated 12-1-1991 whereby the respondents were removed from service. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders of the Commissioner of Police, the respondents moved the Tribunal by filing OAs Nos. 722 and 843 of 1991 which have been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 13-8-1992.
5. The Tribunal has set aside the order of removal passed by the Commissioner of Police on the following grounds :
(1) The charge memo was given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police who was not the appointing authority of the respondent.
(2) The show-cause notice should have been singed only by the competent authority and that it was signed by the Office Superintendent.
(3) No opportunity was given to the respondents to make representation before the Commissioner of Police before he arrived at the decision.
(4) The Commissioner of Police has erred in arriving at a conclusion about removal of the respondents from service on the basis of unreliable report of the Enquiry Officer and that evidence which was factually inconsistent and unreliable could not be the basis for arriving at a decision of removing from service.
6. We have heard Shri A. Mariaputham, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Gaurav Banerjee, the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. As regards the first ground given by the Tribunal, we find that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court in Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappan [(1996) 2 SCC 145 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 433 : (1996) 32 ATC 663
