Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1164
High Court of Judicature at Madras
B. RAJENDRAN
M. Sadasivam Sub Inspector of Police, Cuddalore District
Versus
The Inspector General of Police Villupuram Range & Others
W.P. No. 42822 of 2006
Decided On :23-03-2010
For the Petitioner:A. Arulmozhi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate.
The duty of a police officer to promptly send a victim for medical examination is paramount, and disciplinary action must be proportionate to the charges and circumstances, even in the face of impending retirement.
Headnote:
Delay in Sending Victim for Medical Checkup - Police Disciplinary Proceedings - IPC Section 376 - [IPC Section 376] - The court discussed the duty of the police officer to ensure the immediate medical examination of a victim of a serious offense and the consequences of failing to do so. The court also considered the proportionality of the disciplinary action taken against the officer in light of the charges and the officer's impending retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a police officer, was charged with belatedly registering a case of rape and failing to send the victim for immediate medical checkup. After an enquiry, he was demoted from the rank of Sub Inspector of Police to Head Constable, which he challenged in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in sending the victim for medical checkup had paralyzed the investigation and deprived the victim of justice. It also found that the disciplinary action was not shockingly disproportionate and upheld the demotion.
Issues: The issues included the duty of the police officer to promptly send a victim for medical examination and the proportionality of the disciplinary action in light of the impending retirement of the officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the duty to promptly send a victim for medical examination is paramount and failure to do so can paralyze the investigation and deny justice to the victim. The court also found that the disciplinary action was not shockingly disproportionate and upheld the demotion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the demotion of the police officer from Sub Inspector of Police to Head Constable.
The applicant was appointed as Grade II Constable on 02.07.1962, promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1979 and posted as regular Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1982. While he was working at Cuddalore District during 10.11.1997 to 21.12.1998 at Veppur Police Station, on 03.12.1998, one Selvarani of Veppur Village came to the police station to give a complaint complaining rape on her. On being informed about the same, the applicant returned to the Station at about 3 pm. After preliminary enquiry, the applicant registered a case at 3.00 p.m on 03.12.1998. The applicant thought it fit to send the complainant for medical examination and sought the assistance of the women police by wireless message from Chidambaram Women Police Station to accompany the complainant. According to the applicant, as women constables were not available, he could not neither detain the complainant beyond 6 p.m in the station nor send the complainant to the hospital for medical check up on the same day. In the meantime, in the midnight around 12 O clock, the Inspector of Police took charge of the investigation. Subsequently, the applicant was only assisting the Inspector of Police in searching the accused. Thereafter, he fell sick and submitted leave application between 09.12.1998 to 15.12.1998. According to the applicant, the Inspector of Police was the investigation officer, however, the Inspector of Police made a report on 14.12.1998 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudachalam alleging that the applicant has received the complaint from Selvarani and registered the case after some delay and he has not sent the victim girl immediately for medical check up. According to the applicant, immediately on reaching the police station at 3.00 pm, he registered a case and took efforts to send the victim girl for medical check. Since the investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police at 12 O clock in the midnight, the report sent by the Inspector of Police is false and such a report was sent only to escape from his personal liability. Therefore, for the fault of the Inspector of Police, he should not be made to suffer. Only on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Police, the Deputy Superintendent of Police recommended for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on 15.12.1998, however, no preliminary enquiry was conducted by either the Deputy Superintendent of Police or by the Superintendent of Police regarding the sudden and motivated report sent by the Inspector of Police against him. Based on the above report, charges were framed against the applicant in PR No. 51/99 under Rule 3 (b) dated 16.02.1999 framing three charges against him and they are
i) The applicant has belatedly registered the case in Crime No. 413 of 1998 under Section 376 of IPC
ii) He has not sent the victim girl immediately for medical check up
iii) Negligence of duty by not arresting the accused immediately.
2. The applicant has submitted his reply denying the charges. After detailed enquiry, in which the applicant has also participated, the enquiry officer has held that the first charge was not proved and the other two charges were proved and submitted his report on 25.07.1999. The report of the enquiry officer was submitted to the applicant on 17.08.1999 by the first respondent for which the applicant has also submitted his explanation on 22.08.1999. However, without considering the explanation offered by the applicant, the first respondent has passed the order dated 12.10.1999 imposing punishment of reduction in rank to lower post i.e., from the post of Sub Inspector of Police to the next lower post of Head Constable. According to the applicant, the punishment is excessive and disproportionate to the charges. Moreover, the punishment was imposed on him at the fag end of his retirement i.e., when he has only one year of left over service. Therefore, challenging the order of punishment, the petitioner has file
