Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3383
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
P. Nesamani
Versus
Director General of Police Chennai & Another
Writ Petition No.11964 of 2009
Decided on: 20-09-2013
For the Petitioner:G. Bala, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V. Subbiah, Spl. G.P.
The main legal point established is that the disciplinary authority must adhere to the principles of natural justice by giving the delinquent an opportunity to represent before imposing a penalty.
Headnote:
Police Constable - Disciplinary Action - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 3(b), Sections 354, 376 r/w 511 IPC - The court discussed the application of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and Sections 354, 376 r/w 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also considered the principles of natural justice and the requirement for the delinquent to be heard on differed findings before imposing a penalty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police constable, was charged with attempting to commit rape while intoxicated. After an enquiry, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings and imposed a penalty of postponement of increment for 3 years. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition to challenge the penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority had followed the principles of natural justice by hearing the petitioner on the differed findings before imposing the penalty.
Issues: The main issue was whether the disciplinary authority had followed the principles of natural justice in imposing the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority must give the delinquent an opportunity to represent before recording its findings on the charges and imposing a penalty, in line with the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the court found no infirmity in the impugned orders.
1. The petitioner was a Grade II Police Constable working in Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem Town. He was issued with a charge sheet dated 19.3.2004 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Salem City under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 25.1.2004 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner, on drunken mood, attempted to commit rape on one Tamil Selvi, daughter of Rengan.
2. The petitioner did not submit any explanation. An enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Salem City. In the enquiry, Department examined 12 witnesses including the victim girl Tamil Selvi.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner examined two witnesses on his side as defence witnesses. Pursuant to the enquiry, the enquiry officer gave his report dated 29.8.2005 holding that the charges were not proved.
4. The disciplinary authority, the second respondent herein, disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice dated 16.12.2005 as to why he could not come to a different conclusion that the charges were proved for the reasons given in the show cause notice. The petitioner gave his explanation to the aforesaid differed findings of the disciplinary authority, on 25.1.2006. Thereafter, the second respondent came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect vide order dated 10.4.2006. The petitioner filed a Review Application under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules to the first respondent against the aforesaid punishment. The first respondent rejected his review by order dated 3.7.2008 and confirmed the order of imposition of penalty by the second respondent.
5. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the order dated 10.4.2006 of the second respondent and the order dated 3.7.2008 of the first respondent, confirming the order of the second respondent.
6. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is stated that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Kondalampatty Police Station in Crime No.27 of 2004 under Sections 354, 376 r/w 511 IPC for having molested and attempted to rape one Tamil Selvi, daughter of Rengan, Kombaikadu, Sivadapuram Village in Salem Taluk at about 6.30 p.m., on 25.1.2004. He was placed under suspension on 29.1.2004. It is stated that simultaneously, the departmental action was taken under Rule 3(b) of the TNPSS Rules, 1955 in P.R.No.22/H1/2004 against the petitioner. On enquiry, the enquiry officer found that the charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and had issued a dissenting note. The petitioner gave reply to the differed findings. Rejecting the reply, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment as per the order dated 10.4.2006. The mercy petition was also rightly rejected by the first respondent. The respondents sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made only one submission. According to him, the second respondent/disciplinary authority should issue two notices before passing the impugned order of punishment. It is submitted that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority shall give notice that his tentative conclusion is different from the findings of the enquiry officer and the delinquent shall be asked his views for his tentative conclusion. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority shall hear the delinquent, on his conclusions on the findings of the enquiry officer, by issuing a second notice to the delinquent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the afores
