Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5241
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
U. Rajiah
Versus
The Secretary to the Government Home Department, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No.5746 of 2008
Decided on : 03-12-2009
For the Petitioner:M.S. Soundararajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:T. Seenivasan, Government, Advocate.
The prosecution must prove the case in departmental proceedings, and the court cannot substitute its view on the adequacy of evidence when the disciplinary authority has imposed a minor punishment.
Headnote:
Police Constable - Disciplinary Charges - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - Rule 3(b)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Police Constable, was charged with gross neglect of duty, misconduct, and dereliction of duty. The charges were framed by the Superintendent of Police, and an oral enquiry was conducted, resulting in a report holding all charges as proved. The petitioner appealed against the order of punishment, which was rejected, and subsequently filed a mercy petition, which was also rejected. The petitioner filed a writ petition against the orders of the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the main witnesses did not depose against the petitioner for the first charge, the charges related to conversion of a case under SC/ST Act and neglect of duty in recording seizure were not without evidence. The court held that it cannot sit in appeal on the factual findings of the disciplinary authority and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issues were the vagueness of the charges, the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offenses, and the adequacy of evidence and findings by the disciplinary authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while strict principles of evidence are not applicable to departmental proceedings, the prosecution must still prove the case. It also noted that it cannot substitute its view on the adequacy of evidence, especially when the disciplinary authority has imposed a minor punishment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the charges related to conversion of a case under SC/ST Act and neglect of duty in recording seizure were not without evidence, and there was no necessity to interfere with the findings of the respondents against the petitioner.
The writ petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on 05. 1969 and was promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 1994 and he retired from service on superannuation on 31.05.2005. While he was working as Inspector of Police in Thirupalaivanam village in Tiruvallur District, charges under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 were framed. The three charges framed were as under:
" (i) Gross neglect of duty in not controlling prohibition offences in his jurisdiction from 1. 2002 to till date and receiving weekly Mamool of Rs.5000/- from prohibition offenders Periyasamy and Dhanapal for allowing to sell ID arrack.
(ii) Gross misconduct and dereliction of duty in not handing over the CD file in Thirupalaivanam P.S.Cr.No.59/2002 u/s.147, 148, 452 & 506 (ii) IPC r/w3 (10(x) of SC/ST Act after addition of SC/ST Act on 23.06.2002 to Deputy Supdt. Of Police, Ponneri for further investigation and continuing investigation in this case and remanding the accused.
(iii) Gross neglect of duty in not recording the seizure of 56 empty cans of 35 litres of capacity in Thirupalaivanam P.S.Cr.No.58/2002 4(1-A), 4(1)(a) of TNP Act on 13.06.2002 and recording seizure only 2 cans of arrack each of 35 litres and a Bajaj M80 motor cycle."
2. The said charges were framed by the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District. An oral enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, District Crime Record Bureau, Tiruvallur District, in which nine witnesses were examined and 33 documents were marked on the side of the prosecution, while two witnesses were examined and thirty four documents were marked on the side of the delinquent. The Enquiry Officer has sent a report holding that all the charges are proved. The third respondent, while agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry officer, has passed an order of punishment on 23.07.2003, viz., postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect.
2(a). On appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order, the second respondent, by his order dated 012. 2003, rejected the appeal, against which the petitioner filed a mercy petition before the first respondent, which came to be rejected in G.O. (2D).No.435 Home (Pol.IV) Department dated 18.07.2006. It is as against the said orders of the respondents; the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The impugned orders are assailed by the petitioner on the main ground that the charges are vague and not definite; that there is no evidence for the petitioner having been involved in the charges; that the findings of the respondents are perverse and that the evidence of various witnesses have not been properly appreciated by the respondents.
4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even the prosecution witnesses viz., PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3, who are alleged to have paid the amount to the petitioner by way of mamool, have not stated anything about the same and in fact, they have stated that no such statement has been given by them before the police at all.
4(a). In respect of second charge that the petitioner has not handed over the CD files of certain crime numbers under SC/ST Act, it is his contention that the files have been handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has not taken up the investigation and who instructed the petitioner to investigate and file charge sheet and it was on the directions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the petitioner conducted the investigation and the accused were arrested only under his supervision. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr.R.S.Venugopal, examined as PW.8 in the case, has admitted the same during cross-examination that he visited the area and was aware of the arrest of the accused.
4(b). In respect of the third charge for not recording the seizure of 56 empty cans of 35 litres of capacity, it is the case of t
