Back
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
R. Sakthivel, (Sub-Inspector), Madurai District
Versus
The Director General of Police,Chennai & Others
Writ Petition (MD)No.10727 of 2006 M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2006
Decided On :Decided On : 13-08-2010
JUDGEMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, was placed under suspension on the basis of a complaint alleging that he had demanded and received a bribe from an auto-rickshaw driver for not registering a case against him. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and was imposed with a punishment of postponement of increment for three years. The petitioner challenged the order before the appellate authority and the review petition was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse and not supported by any legal evidence. The court also held that the disciplinary and appellate authorities had failed to apply their minds to the facts of the case and had not considered the appeal in proper perspective. The court further held that the petitioner had been denied natural justice as he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who had turned hostile.
Issues: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse and not supported by any legal evidence? 2. Whether the disciplinary and appellate authorities had failed to apply their minds to the facts of the case and had not considered the appeal in proper perspective? 3. Whether the petitioner had been denied natural justice as he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who had turned hostile?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse and not supported by any legal evidence as: a) The prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and had not supported their earlier statements made in the preliminary enquiry. b) The enquiry officer had relied solely on the statements of the prosecution witnesses made in the preliminary enquiry, which were not admissible in evidence. c) There was no direct evidence to prove that the petitioner had demanded or received any bribe. 2. The court held that the disciplinary and appellate authorities had failed to apply their minds to the facts of the case and had not considered the appeal in proper perspective as: a) The disciplinary authority had merely concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer without giving any reasons. b) The appellate authority had also dismissed the appeal without giving any reasons. 3. The court held that the petitioner had been denied natural justice as he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who had turned hostile.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order.
1. Following a departmental enquiry in P.R.No.312/2003, dated 11.01.2005 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai, passed an order dated 11.01.2005, imposing a punishment of postponement of increment for three years, which shall operate to postpone his future increments from the date of service of this order. The effect of the said order, if any on pension, was considered and intended. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 08.02.2005, before the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, the second respondent herein and the same was rejected on 15.07.2005. The review petition dated 02.02.2006 made by the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Chennai, the first respondent herein was also rejected by order dated 17.02.2006. Challenging the above said orders, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post from the date on which the petitioners juniors were promoted.
2. The short facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:-
While the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station, Madurai District, he was placed under suspension on 28.09.2003 based on a complaint dated 20.09.2003 given by one Mr.Rajapandi, an auto-rickshaw driver alleging that the petitioner, at 11.00 p.m., on 15.09.2003, sought for certain documents pertaining to his vehicle and since the complainant could not furnish the documents, his vehicle was retained in Chekkaroorani Police Station till the next day morning by 16.09.2003, without registering any criminal case, and that the petitioner had also demanded a sum of Rs.2,500/-through police constables Murugan and Mr.Virumandi. It was further alleged that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.1,500/-on the next day on 17.09.2003 and another sum of Rs.500/-through the constables. Departmental action has been taken in P.R.No.312/03 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai, framing three charges against the petitioner and the other police constables. The Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Madurai District was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner, in his explanation dated 27.02.2004, denied the allegations levelled in the charge memorandum and further, submitted that on 15.09.2003 he had checked vehicles in Chellampatti bus stop on Checkaroorani National Highways and at that time, finding that auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-58-B-3686 was driven without a valid driving licence, issued a police notice in No.084258 and further, directed the driver to produce the records relating to the said vehicle on the next day. It is the further explanation of the petitioner that on 17.09.2003, the offender produced the records pertaining to the vehicle. He has further contended that the police notice dated 15.09.2003, defence document No.1, was produced before the Enquiry Officer. In order to wreck vengeance on the petitioner and to transfer him out of Highways duty, the complainant Rajapandi and others have made a false complaint and that the Enquiry Officer has failed to advert to the explanation and erroneously came to the conclusion, on the basis of the statements said to have been given by the prosecution witnesses in the preliminary enquiry.
3. He has further submitted that the statements obtained during preliminary enquiry are not substantive evidence, as they were recorded behind his back and in the oral enquiry, if the witnesses do not say anything connecting the delinquent official with the charges, the said statements recorded during preliminary
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
