High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
M. Ramasamy
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No.38142 of 2005 & W.P.M.P.No.40777 of 2005
Decided On : 02-11-2010
Enquiry Officer - Police Subordinate Service - Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules - [Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules] - The court discussed the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the procedure adopted during the enquiry, and the punishment awarded to the petitioner. It highlighted the relevance of the acquittal of the accused in a related case and the short period the petitioner served as the Station House Officer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, challenged the postponement of his increment for one year without cumulative effect due to a charge of failing to take action against a brothel house runner. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner negligent in curbing antisocial activities within his limits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the punishment shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency and remanded the case to consider imposing a lesser punishment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the procedure adopted during the enquiry, and the proportionality of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the short period the petitioner served as the Station House Officer, the relevance of the acquittal of the accused in a related case, and the procedure adopted during the enquiry in determining the proportionality of the punishment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, confirming the delinquency findings but remanding the case to consider imposing a lesser punishment.
1. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent dated 10.08.2005 under which, the order passed by the fourth respondent postponing the increment of the petitioner for one year without cumulative effect as confirmed by the appellate authority viz., third respondent and the dismissal of the Review petition by the second respondent came to be confirmed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:-
The petitioner joined the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service as Sub-Inspector of Police on 2.11.1979 and was promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 1993. While the petitioner was working as the Inspector of Police in Fairlands Police Station, Salem City, he was dealt with a charge under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules in P.R.No.80 of 2002 for the following delinquency:
“Highly reprehensible conduct in having failed to take action against one brothel house runner S.Menon, residing at C.75, Vanchinathaiyar Street, Swarnapuri for his clandestine activities in running a brothel house with brothel ladies despite instructions to show improvement in policing in fair-lands P.S. jurisdiction by his superiors during August and September 2002”.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime and Traffic), Salem City, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and on behalf of the department 7 witnesses were examined and 11 Exhibits were filed. On behalf of the petitioner herein, 8 Defence witnesses were examined and no Defence Exhibits were filed. P.W.1 is the owner of the house in which S.Menon of Kerala, was running brothel house. P.W.2 is the Manager of a weekly magazine and he speaks about the activities of S.Menon. P.W.3 is the person incharge of circulation of weekly magazine and he speaks about the activities of S.Menon and P.W.4 also speaks about the activities of S.Menon. P.W.5 is Mr.Kannan, Inspector of Police, Salem Town Police Station (Law & Order) and he would depose that while he was working in that capacity, he was on his way to the office on 1.10.2002 one Sukumaran stopped him near the roundtana and gave a written complaint about the soliciting done by a pimp and a lady. P.W.5 on enquiry came to know that person is one Babu @ Menon and are indulging in commission of offences under P.T.I Act, Sathyavani. P.W.5 received the complaint and since the matter pertains to the jurisdiction of Fairlands Police Station, he informed the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Section, Salem Police. As per the instructions of the said official, he visited the house of Menon and found Menon running brothel house and he effected arrest of Menon and Sathyavani on 4.10.2002, registered a case in Crime No.395/2002 under the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. He also submitted a special report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law & Order).
4. P.W.6 was the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law & Order) at the relevant point of time and he would depose that the Commissioner of Police, Salem City has issued a memo dated 4.9.2002 to the petitioner stating that he was not doing proper policing in his limits and he did not show improvement in his work within 15 days, action would follow. The said memo was acknowledged by the petitioner on 24.09.2002. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, has issued a memo dated 19.9.2002 to the petitioner herein to collect information regarding the running of brothel house of Menon and to take action to eradicate the same. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, on 1.10.2002, instructed P.W.6 to enquire about the inaction on the part of the petitioner and submit a report and after making an enquiry, he has submitted a report along with the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended from service.
5. The petitioner had examined Defence witnesses and all would depose that they did not know directly that Menon was doing brothel business in his house and that no complaints wer
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.