Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4048
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
T. Sakthivel
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District & Another
W.P.No.35575 of 2006, M.P.No.1 of 2007 & (O.A. No.7724 of 1999)
Decided on : 23-09-2011
For the Petitioner:K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for M. Muthappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Gunasekara, Govt. Advocate for Respondents.
Dismissal from service should be proportionate to the charge and not excessive, considering the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Police Constable - Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 - Section 392 of IPC - Rule 3 (b) - The judgment discusses the charges against the petitioner, involving a criminal case and unauthorized absence, and the violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry. The court found that the first charge did not constitute misconduct as the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge. The court also considered the circumstances of the petitioner's absence and referenced a similar case to conclude that dismissal from service was too harsh a punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Police Constable, was charged with involvement in a criminal case and unauthorized absence from duty. The enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice as it took place while the petitioner was in prison.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first charge did not constitute misconduct as the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge. The court also considered the circumstances of the petitioner's absence and referenced a similar case to conclude that dismissal from service was too harsh a punishment.
Issues: Charges of involvement in a criminal case and unauthorized absence from duty, violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The first charge did not constitute misconduct as the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge. Dismissal from service was considered too harsh a punishment in the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order of dismissal and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of services, without entitlement to backwages.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the order passed in J1/PR/59/99 dt.15.11.99 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve, Coimbatore District by an order dated 25.05.1998. After appointment, the petitioner was serving as Driver Police Constable in the District Armed Reserve, Coimbatore District. The petitioner went on casual leave for four days from 20.11.98. There was also two days holiday permission. He was to report duty on 26.11.98 but he did not report to duty on that date. Though he states that he did not report to duty since he fell ill, the real reason was that a criminal case was registered on 19.09.98 against him in Crime No.227 of 1998 on the file of the Karamadai Police Station for the offences under Section 392 of IPC. The petitioner avoided arrest and therefore he did not report to duty. He also approached this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail and this Court rejected his application on 01.02.1999. Therefore, he surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore on 29.06.1999. He was later granted bail by this Court on 20.08.1999 with a condition that he should reside at Salem and report before the Salem Town Police Station every Monday and Wednesday. The above said condition was relaxed by this Court on 11.11.1999.
3. In the meantime, the petitioner was issued with charge memo dated 01.05.1999 under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 alleging two charges.
(a) The first charge was that, on 19.09.1998 at 8.00 p.m. the petitioner alongwith three others came in an Ambassador car and intercepted a Jeep and committed robbery of Rs.1,31,000/- from one A.Venkatachalam who travelled in the jeep. It was also alleged that the petitioner and others pushed the said Venkatachalam from the car and took away the cash of Rs.1,31,000/-. It was further alleged that a criminal case was registered in Crime No.227 of 1998 on the file of Karamadai Police Station for offences u/s 392 IPC against the petitioner. The crux of the allegation was that he involved in the criminal case and causeddisrespect to the department.
(b) The second charge was that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 26.11.1998 without intimation for more than twenty one days.
4. According to the petitioner, the charge memo was not served on the petitioner. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry on the charge memo by an order dated 25.06.1999 issued by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent was the enquiry officer. The enquiry was fixed on 12.07.1999 by way of enquiry notice dated 05.07.1999. While the petitioner was confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry at the Central Prison, Coimbatore on 12.07.1999 and nine witnesses were examined on the side of the department. The petitioner did not cross examine the witnesses and requested the enquiry officer that he could be allowed to cross examine the witnesses after he was released on bail but the enquiry officer did not give him opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The petitioner was not able to produce his witnesses also since he was in custody. In these circumstances, the enquiry officer gave a report dated 20.09.1999 holding that the charges were established. The said report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner by the 1st respondent by enclosing the same alongwith his letter dated 27.09.1999 and his comments thereon was sought for. Ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed this writ petition (O.A.No.7724 of 1999) to quash the said order dated 15.11.1999 and for a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary
