Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4407
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
R. Thirugnanam
Versus
The Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District
W.P.NO.44621 OF 2006 & (O.A.NO.5339 OF 2000)
Decided On : 05-10-2010
For the Petitioner:R. Muthukannu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Neelakandan, Government Advocate.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including specific charges, access to relevant documents, and a fair opportunity for the accused.
Headnote:
Police Constable - Disciplinary Action - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 3(a) - Charges were vague and ambiguous. Documents were not furnished. Ex-parte enquiry conducted. Inspector acted vindictively. Impugned order quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Police Constable, was subjected to disciplinary action based on vague and ambiguous charges of using abusive language and obstructing a Head Constable. The petitioner's request to peruse relevant documents was denied, and an ex-parte enquiry was conducted. The petitioner alleged that the Inspector acted vindictively due to a previous complaint against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges were vague and ambiguous, the documents were not furnished, and an ex-parte enquiry was conducted. It also acknowledged the petitioner's allegation of vindictive action by the Inspector.
Issues: Vague and ambiguous charges, denial of access to relevant documents, ex-parte enquiry, vindictive action by the Inspector.
Ratio Decidendi: The charges must be specific, relevant documents must be furnished, and a fair opportunity must be provided before disciplinary action. Vindictive action by authorities should be considered in disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.
1. The petitioner entered the services in Police Department as Police Constable on 10.10.1977. After working in various stations, he was transferred and posted to Control Room, Thanjavur. He worked therein from 29.03.1998 to 18.11.1999. While he was working in Control Room, the Police dress intended to the Constable was not supplied to him by the Inspector of Police, Control Room. He made a complaint against the Inspector. Hence, there was some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the Inspector.
2. The Inspector of Police issued a memo to the petitioner on 20.11.1998, for which the petitioner submitted his reply on 21.11.1998 duly narrating the attitude of the Inspector. But no further action was taken against the said Inspector. Therefore, the Inspector induced one Head Constable Mr.Panneer Selvam to make false complaint against the petitioner.
3. Accordingly, the Head Constable gave a false complaint on 30.11.1998 against the petitioner stating that the petitioner used abusive language. The said complaint was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur with a recommendation and report of the Inspector to take action against the petitioner.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police issued a charge memo dated 18.01.2000 under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules alleging that the petitioner used abusive language against the Head Constable and obstructed him from doing his work.
5. According to the petitioner, the charges were vague and ambiguous. He wrote a letter dated 23.03.2000 requesting the Deputy Superintendent of Police to permit him to peruse the documents. But permission was granted to peruse only one document viz., general diary. In respect of two documents, he was not permitted to peruse the same and in respect of one other document, it was stated that the same was destroyed.
6. Hence, the petitioner submitted another letter dated 28.04.2000 requesting to peruse the documents. But the Deputy Superintendent of Police passed an order dated 02.05.2000 rejecting his request.
7. The petitioner gave another letter on 12.05.2000 requesting to direct the Enquiry Officer to furnish the copies of documents to enable him to submit his explanation. However, no reply was given by the respondents. But an order dated 15.06.2000 was passed imposing the punishment of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect.
8. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.5339 of 2000 (W.P.No.44621 of 2006) praying to quash the aforesaid order dated 15.06.2000 of the respondent.
9. The respondent filed reply affidavit stating that the petitioner was in drunken mood and used abusive language against the Head Constable. Based on the complaint of the Head Constable, the charge memo was issued under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner sought four records on 23.03.2000 for his defence. One of the records was destroyed and two other records were irrelevant and the other record viz., general diary was produced. But he did not peruse the general diary and he wanted all the documents to be produced. Hence, his request was rejected. It is also stated that the Enquiry Officer recorded an ex-parte minute on 16.05.2000. Based on the said minute, the said punishment was imposed.
10. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges are vague and ambiguous. When the allegation of drunkenness was made, he was not referred to medical examination and there was no evidence to prove the drunkenness. Further the alleged abusive words used by the petitioner were not mentioned, except stating in general that the petitioner used abusive language. The learned counsel further submits that the required documents are not furnished and an ex-parte minute was drawn without providing any opport
