Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
G. Selvin Stephen
Versus
Deputy Inspector General of Police Technical Services Police Telecommunication Branch Chennai
W.P.No.14381 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2007
Decided On :Decided on : 13-12-2011
Criminal Case - Departmental Action - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - Rule 3(b) - Rule 3(c)(i)(1) - Rule 3(e)(1) - G.O.Ms.No.479, Home Department, dated 25.03.1997 - G.O.Ms.No.2642, Home, dated 20.10.1982
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police constable, was dismissed from service for absence without permission and involvement in a criminal case. He filed a petition to quash the dismissal and for reinstatement with benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal based on the involvement in the criminal case alone was not justified. The punishment for absence without permission was also deemed excessive. The court set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter to reconsider the appropriate punishment.
Issues: 1. Whether involvement in a criminal case alone justifies dismissal from service. 2. Whether the punishment for absence without permission was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: Involvement in a criminal case alone cannot be the sole ground for dismissal. The department could place the employee under suspension during the pendency of the criminal case. The punishment imposed should be proportionate to the charges.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner and impose appropriate punishment within six weeks.
1. The Original Application in O.A.No.3451 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") is the present Writ Petition.
2. On 05.03.1979 the petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable. From 05.09.1983, he was transferred to Police Telecommunication Branch. On 17.01.1990 he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable. On 15.07.1996 he was further promoted as Head Constable.
3. While so, on 28.09.2001 a case was registered in Crime No.453/2001 against the petitioner under Section 420 of IPC on the file of Ukkadam Police Station, Coimbatore. The compliant was against the petitioner and six others. The Complainant was one Thiru.Venugopal, who is a Goldsmith. The complaint was that the petitioner cheated along with others to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. Based on the said complaint, the petitioner was arrested on 01.10.2010 and later, he came out on bail.
4. While so, the respondent issued a charge memo dated 24.10.2001 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") against the petitioner for his absence for two days without permission and also for having involved in a criminal case in Crime No.453/2001 on the file of Ukkadam Police Station, Coimbatore.
5. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 26.01.2002 denying the allegations. However, an enquiry was ordered and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Communication), Police Telecom Branch, Chennai -4, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who conducted an enquiry, wherein, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the Department. He submitted a report dated 24.04.2002, holding that the charges were proved. Based on the findings after receiving further representation on the findings, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 23.07.2003 and 06.08.2003 by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3451 of 2003 (W.P.No.14381 of 2007) to quash the proceedings dated 23.07.2003 and 06.08.2003 of the respondent and for a direction to reinstate him with all consequential, monetary and service benefits.
6. The respondent filed a reply affidavit before the Tribunal, refuting the allegations. It is stated that since the petitioner involved himself in a criminal case, registered in Crime No.453/2001 under Section 420 of IPC on the file of Ukkadam Police Station, Coimbatore, he was dismissed from service.
7. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.14381 of 2007.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the involvement of the petitioner in criminal case would not be a ground for issuing a charge memo and dismissing a Government employee. According to him, the petitioner could be placed under suspension under Rule 3(e) of the Rules. If the Government employee is convicted, then, based on the conviction, the Government employee could be proceeded with and appropriate punishment could be imposed under Rule 3(c) of the Rules. The Department also could take departmental action based on the similar set of facts, for which, criminal action is pending. But, according to the petitioner, if a Government employee is made an accused in a criminal case that itself could not be a ground for issuing a charge memo and dismissing the said Government employee for involvement in the criminal case.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the absence of two days, the punishment of dismissal is too excessive. He has also relied upon a Judgment of this Court in R.Ramesh Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram and Another (W.A.No.58 of 2011) in this regard.
11. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent seeks to sustain the dismissal order based on the reply affidavit.
12. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
13. Th
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
