Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4351
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
R. Sambasivam
Versus
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirapalli Range
W.P.No.27232 of 2005
Decided On :Decided on: 02-11-2011
For the Petitioner - K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for S. Chandrasekaran, Advocate. For the Respondent: V. Subbiah, Special Government Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned findings in disciplinary proceedings and the application of previous judgments to modify the punishment based on the nature of evidence and the petitioner's years of service.
Headnote:
Bribery - Police Misconduct - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302, Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302, Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules - The court discussed the allegations of bribery under IPC Section 302 and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The court highlighted the importance of providing reasons for the conclusion and analyzed the evidence to modify the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement based on previous judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, was dismissed from service based on allegations of bribery and misconduct. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order, arguing that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were cryptic and did not contain any reason.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Enquiry Officer's findings lacked reasoning and were cryptic. The court also analyzed the evidence related to the bribery charges and concluded that the punishment of dismissal should be modified to compulsory retirement based on the nature of evidence and previous judgments.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the dismissal order based on allegations of bribery and misconduct, and the adequacy of the Enquiry Officer's findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Enquiry Officer's findings must contain reasons for the conclusion and should analyze the evidence. The court also applied previous judgments to modify the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement based on the nature of evidence and the petitioner's years of service.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to modify the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement, ordering the payment of pension to the petitioner.
1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in C No.B2/PR15/03 (PR.No.41/H1/92) dated 12.2.2004 and quash the same.
2. The petitioner entered service as Grade II Police Constable in the year 1964. In the year 1972, he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable. Later, he was promoted as Head Constable in 1976. In the year 1978, he was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and in the year 1982, he was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police. While the petitioner was serving as Sub Inspector of Police at Aravankurichi Police Station, he registered a murder case in Crime No.124 of 1987 for the offence under Section 302 IPC in connection with the death of Pallapatti Samiyar.
3. The petitioner along with Inspector of Police had conducted investigation in the said case. Many villagers were interrogated and their statements were recorded. Ultimately, the petitioner arrayed one Paramasivam and other persons as accused and the said criminal case ended in conviction. But, the investigation in the said case led to the issuance of Charge Memo in PR.No.41/H1/92 dated 1.7.1992. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner threatened various villagers that they would be implicated in the murder case, if they do not pay bribe. The following allegations were made in the said Charge Memo:
"i) Threatened one Muthusami of Pookarungalpatti that he would be implicated in the murder case, demanded Rs.1,500/-for leaving him from the police station and detaining him in the police station from morning to evening.
ii) Threatened one V.Sellamanaicker of Andipattikottai that he would be implicated in the murder case and demanded Rs.350/- and accepted Rs.300/-in the VAOs Office, Velapadi at Annanagar, Pallapatti.
iii) Threatened one S.Maideen Batcha of Pallapatti that he would be implicated in the murder case, demanded Rs.1,000/- and accepted Rs.500/-from him at Velambadi VAOs Office.
iv) Threatened one K.Gurusami of Andipattikottai tht would be implicated in the murder case, demanded and accepted Rs.350/- at Aravakurichi Police Station.
v) Threatened Thiru A.Gopal that he would be implicated in the murder case, demanded Rs.500/- and accepted Rs.200/- from Thiru P.Gurusami, Father-in-law of Thiru A.Gopal at Aravakurichi police station".
4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Perambalur conducted the enquiry. The witnesses were examined. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 12.8.2003 held that out of 5 charges, charges 1 to 3 were proved and the charges 4 and 5 were not proved. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 12.8.2003 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the impugned order dated 12.2.2004 in C.No.B2/PR.15/2003 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application No.975 of 2004 (W.P.No.27232 of 2005) to quash the aforesaid dismissal order dated 12.2.2004 in C.No.B2/PR.15/2003.
5. The petitioner raised various grounds attacking the impugned order. The main ground is that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and it does not contain any reason. According to the petitioner, it is a cryptic order.
6. The respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. According to the respondent, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a proper manner and held that charges 1 to 3 were proved. Based on the proved charges, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
7. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the findings of the Enquiry Officer and submitted that it is a cryptic one. He has also taken through the depositions relating to allegations 1 to 3 and submitted that the depositions were not considered by the Enquiry Officer and according to him, the respondent failed to consider the relevant materials, while passing the impugned order.
8. The learned Special Government Pleader has sought to
