Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4621
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
D. Gandhi
Versus
The Deputy Inspector General of Police & Another
W.P.No.45210 of 2006
Decided On : 26-10-2010
For the Petitioner:K. Rajkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the proved charges and that the petitioner must be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case effectively.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Police Constable - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (D&A) Rules, 1955 - Section 4(1)(J) of TNP Act - 1987 (2) SLJ 134 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (CHANDIGARH) (EX-HEAD CONSTABLE KEHAR SINGH V. THE STATE OF HARYANA), 1983 (2) SLR 243 (RATTAN LAL V. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS), 2006 (1) MLJ 48 (R.M.PALANIAPPAN V. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI AND OTHERS)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Police Constable, was dismissed from service based on charges of being found drunk while on duty and making disrespect to the department. The petitioner denied the charges, stating that the alcohol smell emanated from Ayurvedic medicine he was taking. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved and the petitioner was dismissed from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to present his case effectively and that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the proved charges. The court directed the first respondent to reconsider the appeal and impose an appropriate punishment within twelve weeks.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to present his case effectively. 2. Whether the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the proved charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to prefer an appeal due to the non-furnishing of the deposition of witnesses in the enquiry. The court also found that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the proved charges, considering the circumstances and the petitioner's lack of involvement in any other misconduct.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing the first respondent to reconsider the appeal and impose an appropriate punishment within twelve weeks.
1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police IV Battalion, Kovai Pudur, Coimbatore-42, the second respondent herein, made in B.O.546/98 C.No.PR 39/E 3/98 dated 11.9.1998, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the applicant back in service as a Police Constable with all consequential service and attendant monetary benefits, including continuity of service, disburse all arrears due to the applicant.
2. The petitioner was enlisted as a Grade II Police Constable and was allotted to the Armed Reserve. He was also posted to the Tamil Nadu Special Police IV Battalion as Police Constable, Coimbatore. He joined duty at Coimbatore on 16.10.1997. On 6.5.1998, he was deputed to Commandants Camp Office guard duty. Therefore, he reported at Signal Office for taking arms and ammunition.
3. According to Havildhar at the Signal Office, as the petitioner was found in drunken mood, he did not supply the arms and ammunition to the petitioner. The Havildhar brought the matter to the notice of the Signal Officer. The Signal Officer complained the matter to the Commandant and the Signal Officer handed over the petitioner to Perur Police Station in Coimbatore. The First Information Report dated 6.5.1998 was lodged by the Signal Officer on the file of Perur Police Station in Crime No.99 of 1998 under Section 4(1) (J) of TNP Act.
4. Based on the FIR, the Signal Officer submitted a report dated 7.5.1998 to the second respondent to take suitable action against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 11.5.1998 by the second respondent as per the order in B.O.249/98 (E3/8449/98) dated 11.5.1998. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (D&A) Rules, 1955 in P.R.No.39 of 1998. Two charges made in the Charge Sheet are as follows:
"1)While the petitioner came to the Signal Office on 6.5.1998 to receive arms and ammunitions so as to report at the Camp office of the Commandant, he was found drunk.
2)The petitioner made disrespect to the department in view of the case being registered in Crime No.99 of 1998 on the file of the Perur Police Station under Section 4(1) (J) of TNP Act".
5. The petitioner was sent to C.M.C Hospital at Coimbatore for medical examination on the same day. The Medical Officer, after examination, opined that the petitioner had consumed liquor but he was not under its influence.
6. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 9.7.1998 denying the charges. According to him, for the past two years, he was not well and he was taking Ayurvedic treatment and the medicine contained permissible limit of alcohol and that the alcohol smell emanated only from the medicine and he also submitted that he did not consume alcohol.
7. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. The Signal Officer and the Sub-Inspector, Perur Police Station were examined as witnesses. Based on the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the two charges were held proved by his enquiry report dated 4.8.1998 made in PR.No.39 of 1998.
8. Based on the said findings, the second respondent has passed an order dated 11.9.1998 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 5.10.1998 to give the proceedings of the enquiry so as to file an appeal, but the same was not considered by the competent Authority and his request was declined. He filed an appeal dated 30.10.1998 to the first respondent. While the appeal was pending, he preferred an Original Application No.3173 of 2000 (W.P.No.45210 of 2006) to quash the order dated 11.9.1998 passed by the second respondent and for direction to reinstate him in service with all the benefits.
9. The respondents have filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegations, in which they submitted that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry after giving reasonable opportunity to the petition
