Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4102
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
R. Kumar
Versus
The Director General of Police
W.P.No.35186 of 2006 (O.A.No.7356 of 1998)
Decided on: 08-10-2009
For the Petitioner:H. Sathyanarayana Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent: R. Neelakantan, G.A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and the requirement for the competent authority to comply with the prescribed procedures, including providing a reasonable opportunity for representation and indicating its mind before enhancing penalties.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Police Constable - TNPSS (D&A) Rules - Rule 3(b), Rule 15(a) - The court discussed the TNPSS (D&A) Rules, particularly Rule 3(b) and Rule 15(a), which govern the disciplinary proceedings and review of penalties for police constables. The court emphasized the requirement for the reviewing authority to provide a reasonable opportunity for representation against the proposed penalty and the limitations on imposing or enhancing penalties without proper inquiry and consultation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police constable, was charged with grave irregularity and misconduct, leading to dismissal from service. The respondent, Director General of Police, found the charges proved but noted that the punishment imposed by the Commissioner of Police was beyond the prescribed period under the TNPSS (D&A) Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review and the need for the competent authority to satisfy that the punishment is appropriate. It highlighted the requirement for the reviewing authority to indicate its mind before issuing a Show Cause Notice for enhancing the penalty.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the dismissal order, the authority's compliance with the prescribed period for imposing penalties, and the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the TNPSS (D&A) Rules, particularly Rule 15(a), and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary cases. It emphasized the need for the reviewing authority to provide a reasonable opportunity for representation and to indicate its mind before enhancing the penalty.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from service.
The petitioner was working as a police constable attached to the Armed Reserve, Chennai City Police. He was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) TNPSS (D&A) Rules in P.R.No.25/95 for the grave irregularity in submitting Clothing Acquittance roll on 28. 1994 to the Commanding Officer "C" Company without actually issuing clothing materials to the two police constables, namely Ganesan and Murugesan by forging the signature of the two constables and he was further accused of misconduct and misappropriation of Rs.300/- between 110. 1994 to 26. 1995 and handing over the said amount only on 26. 1995 to the Officer Commanding.
2. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges were proved. He imposed the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect for the proved charges. However, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City took up cognizance of the case suo motu and held that the charges were proved and it requires a deterrent punishment. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the punishment should not be enhanced. Since the petitioner did not submit any explanation, the Commissioner of Police by his order dated 20.3.1997 ordered for the dismissal of the petitioner.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the respondent, Director General of Police. The respondent after going through the records found the misconduct committed by the petitioner was serious and the charges have been proved and the findings were also acceptable. But however, he found that the Commissioner of Police who inflicted the punishment on suo motu review did not do so within the prescribed period of six months under the Rules.
4. Therefore, after cancelling the order of dismissal issued by the Commissioner issued Show Cause Notice for dismissal from service and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation by proceedings dated 27.03.1998. In Paragraphs 5 & 6 of the notice, it was stated as follows:
"5. Thiru Kumar P.C. 2969 of Armed Reserve, Chennai City Police submitted his appeal petition against the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. I have gone through the connected records in the file. The delinquencies committed by the police constable are serious in nature. The prosecution has proved the charge conclusively without doubt. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are agreeable. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai has inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service in his proceedings fourth cited. On his suo-motu review after six months. Hence, I cancel the order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai city in his proceedings, dated 20.03.1997 fourth read above.
6. I consider that the acts of delinquency committed are grave in nature and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary authority i.e., the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year is not commensurate with the gravity of the delinquencies which were held as proved. I therefore, come to a tentative conclusion to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service against the appellant. Thiru Kumar, P.C.2969 of A.R. Chennai City Police is directed to submit his explanation as to why the punishment of dismissal from service should not be awarded to him. He should submit his explanation to the Show Cause Notice within 15 days of receipt of these proceedings. If his explanation is not received within the stipulated time, it will be construed that he has no explanation to offer and the Show Cause Notice will be disposed of on its merits."
5. The petitioner gave his explanation dated 26.06.1998. Upon receiving his explanation, the respondent by the impugned order dated 04.08.1998 rejected the petitioners explanation and imposed the punishment of dismissal. It is as against this order, O.A.No.7356 of 1
