Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 518
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
C. Muniraj & Another
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Home Department & Others
Writ Petition Nos.10921 & 10922 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on : 01-02-2012
For the Petitioner - R. Thiagarajan, SC
for P.I. Thirumoorthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents - N. Srinivasan, Addl. Government Pleader.
The court emphasized the importance of interpreting charges, disciplinary rules, and evidence in disciplinary proceedings, and upheld the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Headnote:
Police Misconduct - Disciplinary Proceedings - Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 4A - Summary of Acts and Sections: TNSPO Conduct Rules, Rule 3(a), Rule 3(b), Rule 4A - The court discussed the charges framed against the petitioners, the applicability of Rule 4A, the categorization of charges under Rule 3(a) and Rule 3(b), the evidence presented, and the proportionality of the punishment. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the charges, rules, and evidence presented, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Head Constables, challenged the penalty of reduction in pay imposed on them after a prohibition raid led to the death of a person in police custody. The court analyzed the charges, applicability of disciplinary rules, and the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioners' contentions regarding the vagueness of the charges, applicability of Rule 4A, categorization of charges, lack of evidence, and proportionality of the punishment, ultimately dismissing the writ petitions.
Issues: The issues involved the clarity of charges, applicability of disciplinary rules, categorization of charges, sufficiency of evidence, and proportionality of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the charges, rules, and evidence presented, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and the miscellaneous petitions, with no order as to costs.
1. The petitioners are Head Constables and they have come up with the above writ petitions challenging the orders of penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect.
2. Heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. On 27.8.1990, a team of policemen led by the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to H8 Thiruvotriyur Police Station conducted a prohibition raid and apprehended one Ravi. The team of policemen included the petitioners in these writ petitions. On the ground that the said Ravi agreed to identify other persons involved in illicit arrack business, the entire team of policemen went along with the said Ravi. According to the police team, there was a police patrol vehicle parked in a place known as Kalyani Chetty Nagar. Fearing that he might be taken to the police station in the vehicle, the said Ravi started running. While crossing the Ennore Express Road, he was fatally knocked down by a container lorry.
4. Since the said Ravi was in the custody of the police team, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer under P.S.O. 145. On the basis of his report, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.401 Public (Law and Order) Department dated 31.3.1999, directing the initiation of departmental proceedings against the members of the police team.
5. In pursuance of the said directions, charge memos were issued under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) against all the members of the police team. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic (South) was nominated as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved. On the basis of the said report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect. The orders of the Disciplinary Authority namely the Commissioner of Police were dated 31.5.2001. The appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Director General of Police by orders dated 22.7.2002. The petitioners thereafter filed mercy petitions to the Chief Minister during the grievance
day. Those mercy petitions were rejected by orders dated 15.3.2004. Simultaneously, the petitioners had filed petitions to the Government on 29.4.2003. Contending that they were not disposed of for a long time, the petitioners filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.2788 and 2789 of 2006. The said writ petitions were disposed of by orders dated 10.6.2010 directing the Government to consider the petitions filed by the petitioners and pass orders within three months. In pursuance of the said orders, the Government considered the petitions and dismissed the same by orders dated 25.2.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come up with the above petitions.
6. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds :
(i) that the charge framed against the petitioners was vague in as much as the part played by each member of the police team is not detailed;
(ii) that the respondents failed to order a joint enquiry in terms of Rule 4A of the Rules;
(iii) that the charge framed against the petitioners, is fit to be only under Rule 3(a) relating to minor penalties and not to major penalty under Rule 3(b);
(iv) that the findings are totally perverse and based on no evidence; and
(v) that the punishment is not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that could be held proved.
7. But, in so far as the first contention is concerned, the charge framed against the petitioners is identically worded. Therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner in the first writ petition alone is extracted as follows :
"That the said Thiru Muniraj, Gr.I. PC 10528, H.8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station Law and Order, on 27/
