Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4722
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
K. Muniappan
Versus
The Secretary to Government Home Department & Others
W.P.No.420 of 2008
Decided On : 06-11-2009
For the Petitioner:K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for M/s.G.Bala and Daisy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R. Murali, Government Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of conducting thorough investigations and adhering to statutory rules and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
perfunctory investigation - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - Rule 3(a)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, challenges the minor punishment imposed on him for perfunctory investigation in a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge relates to his investigation in Crime No.815 of 1991, and the petitioner contests the charge, citing delay in framing the charge and lack of proper consideration of his explanation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's investigation was perfunctory, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The court also noted the delay in registering the FIR and the petitioner's failure to obtain attestation from the Medical Officer while recording the statement of the injured. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that no enquiry was conducted and that the punishment was passed in violation of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of the petitioner's investigation, the delay in framing the charge, and the violation of statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's investigation was inadequate, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The court also found that the delay in registering the FIR and the petitioner's failure to obtain attestation constituted misconduct. The court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the violation of statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court found no proof of prejudice to the petitioner or violation of statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
The writ petitioner has jointed as Sub Inspector of Police on 29. 1987 and was promoted as Inspector of Police. In this writ petition he challenges the minor punishment imposed on him under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.
2. 1. While the petitioner was working as a Sub Inspector of Police at Ammapet Police Station, on 22. 1996, he was served with a charge memo under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and the charge relates to his investigation in Crime No.815 of 1991 on the file of the Ammapet Police Station under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. 2. As Sub Inspector of Police, the petitioner has no jurisdiction to investigate an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and it is only the Inspector of Police who is competent and therefore, according to the petitioner the very charge that the petitioner has done perfunctory investigation is not correct.
3. The petitioner has submitted his explanation for the charge on 3. 1996 stating that originally the case was registered under Sections 341 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and after the injured person died, it was converted as an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 8. 1994; that since the Medical Officer was not present the petitioner has recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the injured was in hospital in a stable condition; and that the investigation was done only by the Inspector of Police.
4. It is his further case that while the occurrence took place in the year 1991, the charge was framed after five years, namely in the year 1996, and the explanation of the petitioner was not properly considered. It is his case that even though Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 does not contemplate appointment of an Enquiry Officer or furnishing of enquiry report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem Town has prepared the enquiry report holding the charge against the petitioner as proved and agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, namely the fourth respondent has passed an order on 210. 1996 imposing a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, without application of mind.
5. On an appeal preferred to the third respondent on 212. 1996, the third respondent has modified the punishment into that of censure by order dated 23. 1997. The further review preferred to the Inspector General of Police on 6. 1998 was entertained by the second respondent and the same was rejected on 112. 1998 without assigning any reason. The review petition filed before the first respondent under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was rejected on 2. 2006 without acting as per the Rules. Therefore, none of the orders passed by the authorities are speaking orders.
2. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that mere omission or commission or error of judgment or negligence simpliciter is not a misconduct by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Inspector Prem Chand v. Government of NCT of Delhi, [2007] 4 SCC 566. Further, the order of punishment has been passed mechanically, without application of mind and no proper enquiry was conducted and the punishment has been passed in violation of the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice.
3. 1. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, while it is admitted that the charge against the petitioner was issued under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 for the delinquency of perfunctory investigation conducted by the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police in Crime No.815 of 1991 on the file of the Ammapet Police Station under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, it is stat
