Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2340
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
A. Anbukudivendan
Versus
The Director General of Police, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No.3521 of 2007 (O.A.No.6914 of 2001)
Decided on : 11-06-2012
For the Petitioner:S. Sai Shankar, M/s K.V. Subramanian, Advocates.
For the Respondents: V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl.G.P.
The court emphasized the importance of supporting evidence and the potential for adverse inferences when the State fails to produce relevant documents.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Tamil Nadu Civil Servants Conduct Rules 1973 - Rule 20(i), Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules 1955 - Rule 3(b)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable, was accused of demanding bribe and using filthy language. The disciplinary authority dismissed him, but the appellate authority reduced the punishment and reinstated him. The petitioner challenged the order, claiming the complaint was motivated due to a pending criminal case against the complainant, and that the prosecution witnesses did not support the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses did not support the allegations against the petitioner, and the complaint was likely motivated. The court also noted the State's failure to produce the enquiry file and drew adverse inferences. It held that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and the impugned order was arbitrary and passed without evidence.
Issues: Alleged misconduct, motivation of complaint, findings of the enquiry officer, failure to produce enquiry file
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that when prosecution witnesses do not support the allegations, and there is a motive to falsely implicate the accused, the findings of the enquiry officer may be deemed perverse. The failure to produce the enquiry file can lead to adverse inferences against the State.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of punishment was quashed. The petitioner was entitled to consequential benefits.
1. The petitioner while serving as Constable in B3 Fort Police Station (Crimes), Chennai, was served with charge memo P.R.No.41/97 alleging that he violated Rule 20
(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants Conduct Rules 1973, on the allegation that the petitioner along with Mr. Jesudoss, Grade I Constable had threatened one Thiru Madakannu, a scrap dealer who was apprehended under Goondas Act, and under threat, demanded bribe for Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only or Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in this process, collected more than Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) as bribe.
2. The petitioner denied the allegation. The competent authority does not agree with the explanation of the petitioner and appointed an enquiry officer to look into the charges. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the enquiry officer and dismissed the petitioner from service.
3. However, on appeal, the appellate authority modified the punishment to reduction of time scale of pay by two stages for one year with cumulative effect, and reinstated the petitioner in service. The review filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order by submitting, that Thiru. Madakannu, a scrap merchant was dealing with the stolen articles and selling it through Mr. Dhanam. A criminal case Cr.No.583/97 was registered against him at B3 Police Station by the Sub-Inspector of Police on 28.6.1997 i.e. 16 days prior to filing of complaint against the petitioner. Therefore, the complaint was motivated, as the petitioner was assisting the Sub-Inspector of Police in investigation of the case and the Sub Inspector had sent the petitioner with Mr. Jesudoss to bring Mr. Madakannu to police station.
5. It is the submission of the petitioner that in the enquiry, Mr. Madakannu was examined as P.W.1, who did not support the case of the prosecution, as he denied having paid any money to the petitioner and further denied that any bribe was demanded.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained as it was proved beyond doubt that the complaint against the petitioner was motivated in view of the registration of criminal case against Thiru Madakannu at B3 Police station, prior to filing of complaint against the petitioner.
7. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse on the face of record, as Mr. Madakannu, P.W.1, during his cross examination categorically admitted, that no money was paid or demanded by the petitioner.
8. Similarly, the President of Scrap Merchants Association, i.e. Mr. Danam, P.W.2 in his statement deposed that he did not know the petitioner at all, and also admitted that he had filed the complaint at the behest of Mr. Madakannu and there was no truth in the complaint.
9. The other witnesses also did not supported the prosecution version rather it was admitted that the petitioner had not threatened Thiru Madakannu nor used filthy language against him.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding of the enquiry officer holding that the charge of petitioner having demanded the bribe and used filthy language was proved, is perverse, therefore cannot be sustained in law.
11. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Special Govt. Pleader, by contending that the complaint against the petitioner was received from the Tamil Nadu Iron, Brass, Plastic Merchant Association to the effect that the petitioner and his associate namely Mr.Jesudoss were frequently harassing Mr. Madakannu a petty trader in Iron, Brass and extracting money from him by threatening that he will register a case against him under Goondas Act. It was due to the grave charge of misconduct, the petitioner was dealt with under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules 1955. The enquiry was fairly conducted
