SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 2667

High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA
S. Lingeswaran
Versus
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore & Another
WP.No.21660 of 2008
Decided on : 08-06-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:S. Ramadevan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: K.V. Dhanapalan, AGP.

Responsibility of a police officer to ensure necessary equipment for custody and proportionality of disciplinary punishment.

Headnote:

Police Officer - Disciplinary Action - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (disciplinary and appeal) Rule 1955 - Rule 3(b), 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) TNP Act

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Head Constable, filed a writ petition to challenge the order imposing disciplinary action on him for allowing an accused to escape from custody. The disciplinary authority found him guilty and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, which was later modified by the first respondent to stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's defense regarding the lack of arms, ammunitions, and handcuffs was not sufficient to absolve him of responsibility. The court also noted that the modified punishment was minor and that the petitioner had not suffered any major punishment for the proved misconduct.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's responsibility for the escape of the accused and the adequacy of the punishment imposed on him.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, as a Head Constable, should have ensured the necessary arms, ammunitions, and handcuffs were available when taking the accused to court. The court also emphasized that the modified punishment was minor and proportionate to the misconduct.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT :-

1. The petitioner S.Lingeswaran has come to this court by filing the present writ petition to quash the order of the 1st respondent in D2/SP/17/2007 dated 08.09.2007 modifying the order of the second respondent in J1/PR.9/2006 dated 30.03.2007 and to confer all consequential and other attendant benefits to him.

2. The petitioner, while he was serving as Head Constable, suffered with charge memo dated 27.04.2006 issued under rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (disciplinary and appeal) Rule 1955. The allegation mentioned in the charge memo is as follows:

"Highly reprehensible and in unbecoming conduct and lethargic attitude of a police officer in having allowed the accused Kothampan @ Ramaswamy (47) s/o. Rangasamy of Kottapalayam, Karapadi Village concerned in Puliampatty P.S. Crime No.460/2005 u/s.4(1)(aaa) r/w4(1-A) TNP Act to escape from custody at 15.30hrs on 23.11.2005 near sub jail Sathyamangalam.

3. The petitioner, after receipt of the charge memo, submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority, after receipt of his explanation, having found no merits in the explanation submitted by the petitioner, appointed an enquiry officer to go into the charges levelled in the charge memo. Thereafter, the enquiry officer also conducted a detailed enquiry and found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, on receipt of the report from the enquiry officer, the petitioner was awarded with punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore who also fell in line with the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Though the first respondent confirmed the findings of the disciplinary authority, modified the punishment into stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come forward to this court by way of filing the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner also filed mercy petition before the first respondent/ Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore and the first respondent rejected the said mercy petition in RC.No.AP.1(1)/145086/2008, dated 21.09.2008. However, the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the first respondent.

5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed his submissions on two folds: firstly, the petitioner was entrusted with the court duty to produce an accused one Kothampan @ Ramasamy (47) s/o.Rangasamy, Kottapalayam, Karapadi Village who was arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police, for the offence of possessing 110 liters of ID Arrack, before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam for remand extension. The Sub Inspector, Puliampatty Police Station had conducted roll call, allotted escort duty to both the petitioner and one HC1245-Marutha Gounder. Both the head constables came to the Judicial Magistrate Court, but the petitioner instructed Marutha Gounder to take the accused from sub jail. On receipt of the instruction from the petitioner, another HC1245-Marutha Gounder took the accused in his two wheeler and came out of the sub jail and while he was above to start the two wheeler, the accused escaped towards east and entered into the nearby sugarcane field and escaped from the custody, for which the charge memo was issued to both the petitioner and HC1245-Marutha Gounder. He was issued charge memo containing the charge that the petitioner had committed highly reprehensible and in unbecoming conduct and lethargic attitude of a police officer in having allowed the accused Kothapam @ Ramasamy to escape from his custody at 15.30hrs on 23.11.2005 near sub jail Sathyamangalam.

7. Secondly, t




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top