Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
Kanakaraj and Others - Petitioners
Versus
The Superintendent of Police Coimbatore Rural District and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.11636 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 22-06-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.K.Venkatramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Elumalai Government Advocate
The judgment establishes the principle that dismissal from service based on a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is valid and does not constitute double jeopardy.
Headnote:
Certiorarified Mandamus - Police Constable's Dismissal from Service - TNP Act, Section 376, 511, 323, 4(1)(j) - TNPSS (D & A) Rules, Rule 3(c)(1) - Police Standing Order 66(1) - Attempted Rape - Compulsory Retirement - Double Jeopardy
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police constable, was acquitted of criminal charges but later convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for attempting to rape a minor girl. He was initially placed under compulsory retirement, which was later revoked. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service based on the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's dismissal from service was valid as it was in accordance with TNPSS (D & A) Rules and Police Standing Orders. The court rejected the petitioner's argument of double jeopardy and held that the criminal and departmental proceedings were distinct, justifying the dismissal.
Issues: The key issues were the validity of the dismissal from service and the applicability of double jeopardy in the context of the petitioner's acquittal, subsequent conviction, and dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal from service was justified based on the petitioner's conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. The court also emphasized the distinction between criminal and departmental proceedings, rejecting the claim of double jeopardy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to any pensionary benefits due to his dismissal from service.
1. This Writ petition is filed praying issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with the order of dismissal from service issued by him in C.No.J3/51833/94 DO No.1038/2002 dated 21.08.2002 and quash the same and direct the respondents to implement the orders issued in C.No.J1/PR62/91 in DO No.777/94 dated 10.08.1994 regarding compulsory retirement and grant him all consequential retirement benefits.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner entered the service as a police constable in Coimbatore District in the year 1962 and he was falsely implicated in a criminal case registered in Crime No.103/88 on the file of Karamadai Police Station for offences under Section 376, 511, 323 and 4(1)(j) of TNP Act and the case was tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruppur and the case ended in acquittal on 19.11.1994.
3. The learned counsel would further contend that for the same set of allegations, the first respondent proceeded with disciplinary action. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the same was challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.445 of 1992 and the Tribunal by order date 28.04.1992 was pleased to stay the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings has not been concluded, but the petitioner was imposed with a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service vide order of the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District on 10.08.1994. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.08.1994 made in O.A.No.4295 of 1994 stayed the order of compulsory retirement from service initially for a period of 3 weeks and subsequently, it was extended until further orders and based on which, the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 05.09.1994 revoked the orders of compulsory retirement from service and reinstated the petitioner into service. Later on, the said O.A was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.16653 of 2006 and was withdrawn on 04.02.2008.
4. The learned counsel would also contend that aggrieved against the order of acquittal dated 19.11.1994 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, the State preferred an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.86 of 1995 and this Court by order dated 10.07.2002 allowed the Criminal Appeal and convicted the petitioner and imposed a punishment of 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner surrendered before the lower court and remanded to judicial custody to undergo the punishment. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition No.6208 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed at the time of admission on 01.08.2003. Consequently, the petitioner was arrested on 28.08.2003 and remanded to custody and was released on 26.06.2005. In the mean while, based on the conviction sustained in the criminal case, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 05.08.2002 as to why he should not dismissed from service. As the petitioner has not submitted any reply in time due to his preoccupied work in connection with preferring of Special Leave Petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, vide order dated 21.08.2002 dismissed the petitioner from service.
5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent, who has already imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement on 10.08.1994 on the petitioner which has not been cancelled, cannot impose another punishment of dismissal from service for the same set of allegations. Moreover, on vacating stay of punishment of compulsory retirement from service, the said punishment of compulsory retirement come into force. Hence, the order of dismissal from service dated 21.08.2002 is non-est and cannot be implemented.
6. Tha
