Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3026
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
R. Murugavel
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore & Another
Writ Petition No.20391 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013
Decided On: 29-08-2013
For the Petitioner:G. Shivasurya, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V. Subbiah, Spl. Govt. Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a police constable can be suspended based on a criminal case against them if it is deemed necessary in the public interest, as per the relevant rules and legal principles.
Headnote:
Suspension - Police Constable - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - 3(e)(1)&(2) - The court upheld the suspension of a police constable based on a criminal case against him, citing the necessity in the public interest. The court also referenced relevant case law and legal principles to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police constable, was suspended due to his involvement in a criminal case. The petitioner challenged the suspension, arguing that he was not arrested and remanded to custody, and therefore, there was no necessity to place him under suspension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension was justified under Rule 3(e)(1)&(2) of the TNPSS (D & A) Rules, as it was necessary in the public interest due to the criminal case against the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suspension of the petitioner, a police constable, was justified based on the criminal case against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension was justified under the relevant rules and legal principles, citing case law and legal pronouncements from the Apex Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the suspension of the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
1. The petitioner was appointed as Grade I Constable in the Police Department. He was promoted as Special Sub-Inspector of Police and posted at B3 Traffic Kattur Police Station, Coimbatore City.
2. While so, a case was registered in Crime No.20/2013 on the file of Perur Police Station, Coimbatore District, under Sections 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner along with Sundarajan and Natarajan had beaten the defacto complainant Meenatchi Sundaram and damaged the glass bottles of his petty shop and caused simple hurt.
3. In these circumstances, the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail from this Court by an order dated 13.02.2013 in Crl.O.P.No.2855 of 2013.
4. Based on the registration of the aforesaid criminal case, the second respondent passed the impugned suspension order dated 13.02.2013 under Rule 3(e)(1)(i)&(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (for short TNPSS (D & A) Rules).
5. The order of suspension is under challenge in this writ petition.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not arrested and remanded to custody, and therefore, there was no necessity to place him under suspension. It is further submitted that paying subsistence allowance from tax payers money would cause loss to the Government exchequer and therefore, he prayed that the suspension of the petitioner may be revoked and he could be transferred to a faraway place.
8. The petitioner has relied on the following judgments of this Court:-
i) The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range v. S.Govindaraj [2012 (1) CTC 124]
ii) R. Gunasekaran, Sub-Inspector of Police v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. It is necessary to extract clause 3 (e)(1) & (2) of TNPSS (D & A) Rules:-
"3(e)(1) A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service,where-
(i) an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated or is pending, or
(ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or he is under trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest.
(2)A member of a service who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period longer than forty eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended under this rule."
11. The petitioner was not placed under suspension invoking clause 3(e)(2) of the TNPSCC (D & A) Rules. Only the said rule contemplates placing an employee under suspension if he was detained in custody for more than forty eight hours. Hence, the submission made in this regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance.
12. As per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner was placed under suspension for his involvement in the criminal case in Crime No.20/13 under Sections 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC on the file of Perur Police Station, Coimbatore District.
13. It is stated in the suspension order that public interest requires to place the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner was placed under suspension invoking Rule 3(e)(1)(i)&(ii) of TNPSS (D & A) Rules. The said Rule contemplates to place an employee under suspension if complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or he is under trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest.
14. Further, the petitioner is a Special Sub-Inspector belonging to Uniformed service. A criminal case is registered against him. The allegation made against him was that he had caused damage to the petty shop of the defacto complainant and caused simple hurt.
15. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of suspension. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended by placing reliance on the judgments referred t
