Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1729
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
P. Ganesh @ Ganesan - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, State of Tamilnadu, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 6406 of 2019
Decided On : 08-08-2019
For the Petitioner:A. Yamuna, G. Madavakarkidasan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: J. Pothiraj, Spl.G.P.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for maintaining parity in the imposition of penalty on delinquent officers, emphasizing the principles of equality and proportionality in punishment.
Headnote:
Discipline - Police Constable - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the imposition of penalty on a Police Constable under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, focusing on the parity of treatment in the imposition of penalty, as well as the principles of equality and proportionality in punishment. The court referred to various case laws and emphasized the need for maintaining parity in the imposition of penalty on delinquent officers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Police Constable, challenged the penalty of 'compulsory retirement' imposed on him, arguing for parity in punishment with a co-delinquent who received a minor penalty of 'postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the imposition of 'compulsory retirement' on the petitioner, in contrast to the minor penalty imposed on the co-delinquent, was discriminatory and disproportionate. The court emphasized the need for maintaining parity in the imposition of penalty on delinquent officers.
Issues: The issues revolved around the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner, the principle of parity in penalty imposition, and the discriminatory treatment in the imposition of penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there must be equality in the imposition of penalty on delinquent officers, emphasizing the principles of equality and proportionality in punishment. The court referred to various case laws and highlighted the need for maintaining parity in the imposition of penalty.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders imposing 'compulsory retirement' on the petitioner and directing the authorities to substitute the penalty with 'postponement of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect', as imposed on the co-delinquent. The respondents were directed to pass orders within a period of four weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner was working as a Police Constable Grade-II in the Police Department. He was placed under suspension, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, pending enquiry into charges to be framed against him. Thereafter, a charge-memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 13.08.2013, charging the petitioner along with another Police Constable Grade-I, that during the duty hours, he entered the TASMAC outlet at about 10.30 p.m., on 24.06.2013 and attempted to consume alcohol from the TASMAC outlet, which was in fact closed after working hours.
2. Thereafter, an enquiry was held and the charges were found established. An enquiry report was also submitted on 10.03.2014. After obtaining explanation from the petitioner, final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the penalty of ‘compulsory retirement’, on 12.12.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed mercy petition-cum-Review Petition on 23.04.2015. The same was rejected by the Director General of Police, on 09.06.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner appealed to the Government, vide his representation dated 09.06.2016, followed by reminders. However, no order was passed. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.16777 of 2018. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 05.07.2018, directing the Government to dispose of the appeal within a particular time. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition No.2712 of 2018, on 01.11.2018. However, no order was passed by the Government in compliance with the earlier order passed by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition. Finally the Government passed order in G.O.(D) No.1479, Home (Police V) Department, dated 21.12.2018, rejecting the appeal as being devoid of merits. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the third respondent herein, dated 12.12.2014 and the orders passed by the second and first respondents, dated 09.06.2016 and 21.12.2018 are put to challenge in the present writ petition.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he would confine his argument only in regard to the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner, viz., ‘compulsory retirement’. According to the learned counsel, the co-delinquent, who was also identically charge-sheeted, who was a Grade-I Police Constable, was given a minor penalty of ‘postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect, vide order dated 10.11.2014, whereas, the petitioner herein was imposed with the penalty of ‘compulsory retirement’. According to the learned counsel, both the petitioner as well as the other person, viz., A.Prabakaran, Grade-I Police Constable, were supposed to have visited the TASMAC outlet on the date and time mentioned in the charge-memorandum and attempted to consume alcohol illegally. While so, while imposing the penalty, the Government has adopted a different yardstick by letting of the other co-delinquent with the minor penalty of ‘postponement of increment for one year with cumulative effect’, whereas, the petitioner was compulsorily retired.
4. The learned counsel would submit that this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have held consistantly that there has to be parity in the matter of imposition of penalty when two delinquents were identically charge-sheeted. The learned counsel would also submit that though several grounds have been raised in assailing the issuance of charge-memorandum, conduct of enquiry and the punishment, he would not traverse in regard to those grounds and issues, as he would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if the Court takes a call on the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner alone viz-a-vis punishment imposed on the co-delinquent.
5. The learned counsel would straight away draw the attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P.No.20953/2018, dated 02.07.2019,
