Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(Mad) 120

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
T. Rethina Swamy – Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli – Respondent
W.P. (MD)Nos. 8954, 8955, 8956, 8957, 8958, 8421, 8288 & 8370 of 2010 and all other connected miscellaneous petitions
Decided On : 11-01-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:C.T. Perumal, Advocate
For the Respondent: R. Sethuraman, Special Government Pleader

Simultaneous proceedings are permissible, and departmental proceedings should be concluded without undue delay. The court emphasized the need for a fair trial for the accused while balancing the demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 - The judgment discusses the validity of conducting departmental disciplinary proceedings against government servants while criminal cases are pending against them. The court emphasizes the need for a fair trial for the accused while balancing the demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. It highlights various legal principles established by previous judgments, emphasizing that simultaneous proceedings are permissible and that departmental proceedings should be concluded without undue delay.
Fact of the Case:

The court considered multiple writ petitions challenging charge memos issued to government servants in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. The charge memos were issued in relation to alleged reprehensible conduct of the petitioners while on duty, and the petitioners sought to quash the charge memos mainly on the ground that the facts and circumstances in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings were similar in nature.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no infirmity in the charge memos and that the departmental disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to proceed independently of the criminal case. It emphasized that the procedures for conducting criminal trials and departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct and that the mere pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground for quashing the charge memos. The court also directed the appointment of an independent inquiry officer to conduct the domestic enquiry in a transparent manner.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of conducting departmental disciplinary proceedings against government servants while criminal cases were pending against them. The court also addressed the contention that the authority who framed the charges cannot conduct the enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that simultaneous proceedings are permissible and that departmental proceedings should be concluded without undue delay. It emphasized the need for a fair trial for the accused while balancing the demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The court also directed the appointment of an independent inquiry officer to conduct the domestic enquiry in a transparent manner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the charge memos, emphasizing that the charge memos cannot be quashed and directing the appointment of an independent inquiry officer to conduct the domestic enquiry. There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

ORDER :

The issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same and therefore, all these matters are taken up together for final disposal by way of this common order.

2. The charge memo issued to the writ petitioners in P.R.Nos.35, 38, 36, 40, 39, 119, 118, 41 dated 12.03.2009, 12.05.2009, 01.06.2009 and the consequential Memorandum issued in proceedings dated 06.07.2010, 17.06.2010, 01.06.2009, respectively, are under challenge in these writ petitions.

3. The writ petitioner in WP(MD) No.8954 of 2010 was appointed as Gr.II Constable on 13.02.1977 and posted to serve in Armed Reserve, Tirunelveli. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Gr.I Constable in the year 1993 and subsequently as Head Constable in the year 1998.

(i) The writ petitioner in WP(MD) No.8955 of 2010 was appointed as Gr.II Constable on 25.10.1984 and posted to serve in Armed Reserve, Chennai. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Gr.I Constable in the year 1997 and subsequently as Head Constable in the year 2000.

(ii) The writ petitioner in WP(MD) No.8956 of 2010 was appointed as Gr.II Constable on 17.11.1988 and posted to serve in Armed Reserve, Tuticorin District. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Gr.I Constable in the year 1998 and subsequently as Head Constable in the year 2004.

(iii) The writ petitioner in WP(MD) No.8957 of 2010 was appointed as Gr.II Constable on 01.05.1988 and posted to serve in Armed Reserve, Chennai. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Gr.I Constable in the year 1999 and subsequently as Head Constable in the year 2004.

(iv) The writ petitioner in WP(MD) No.8958 of 2010 was appointed as Gr.II Constable on 01.04.1981 and posted to serve in Tamil Nadu Special Police, Tirunelveli District. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Gr.I Constable in the year 1995 and subsequently as Head Constable in the year 2000.

(v) The writ petitioner in WP(MD) No.8421 of 2010 was appointed as Constable on 01.10.1970. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2006.

(vi) The writ petitioner in WP(MD) No.8288 of 2010 was appointed as Constable on 14.08.19690. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 2004. Subsequently, on completion of his service, on 30.06.2006, he attained superannuation.

(vii) The writ petitioner in WP(MD) No.8370 of 2010 was appointed as Constable on 01.04.1974. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2004.

4. On account of certain allegations a criminal case was registered against the writ petitioners in Cr.No.391 of 2006 in Kadayanallur Police Station. The writ petitioners have been arrayed as accused No.6, 8, 7, 10, 9, 12, 4, 5 in the said criminal case. The criminal case registered against the writ petitioners has been transferred to CBCID, by the order of Director General of Police. Under these circumstances, departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioners under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Apppeal) Rules 1955. The charges against the writ petitioners are extracted hereunder:

"Charge: Highly reprehensible conduct in having beaten and tortured one secured suspected accused namely Mohamed Masood, S/o.Abdul Jabar, a resident of Chanthai Nadupettai, Kadayanallur, Thenkasi Taluk, in Tirunelveli District on 29.11.2005 while he was detained at Keeriparai P.S. from 28.11.2005 to 30.11.2005 midnight under the guise of interrogation in the dacoity case in Aralvoimozhy P.S. Cr.No.482/2005 u/s.395, 397 and 427 IPC registered on 28.11.2005 at 01.30 hours."

5. Annexure-II of the charge memo provides the statement of allegations namely imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, in support of the charge framed against the writ petitioners. Annexure-III of the charge memo enumerates the list of documents filed. Annexure-IV of the charge memo denotes the list of witnesses to be examined to establish the charges against the writ petitioners.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(Mad) 120

Simultaneous proceedings are permissible, and departmental proceedings should be concluded without undue delay. The court emphasized the need for a fair trial for the accused while balancing the demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

Cases Referred (8)