Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, S. KANNAMMAL, JJ.
M.S. Ramalingasami (died) & Others – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Inspector General of Police, Chennai & Another – Respondent
W.A (MD) No. 840 of 2012
Decided On : 25-03-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 – Rule 3 – Transfer – Challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD) the above Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ appellant – Appellant was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Thiruverambur Police Station from 21.05.2000. – He died pending the above Writ Appeal and his legal heirs, who are the appellants 2 to 5, are now prosecuting the same on his behalf. – Case of the writ appellant was that, he registered two cases, namely Crime and investigated the same. – It is stated that Chief Inspector ordered the writ appellant to destroy the CD file in Crime and further instructed him to alter the FIR in Crime – As the writ appellant did not heed to his request, he was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing-II, alleging disobedience. – Challenging the said transfer, O.A. was filed by the writ appellant, in which, the transfer order was stayed and he was retained in Police Station – He had further stated that he was put to sufferings due to the illegal and atrocious activities of the said Chief Inspector, which constrained him to make a representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police – Pursuant to his complaint, the Additional Deputy Superintendant of Police enquired into the matter and submitted a report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police
Finding of court: It is a well settled principle that a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. – The standard of proof required is only the preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as required in a criminal case. – The relevant materials which the Disciplinary Authority, had accepted and those materials support the conclusion and also concurred by the Appellate Authority cannot be interfered with while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to arrive at a independent finding on the materials. – If the enquiry has been properly held, the question of adequacy of reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed in a Writ Petition. – When the enquiry has been conducted consistent with the Rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, imposing punishment is a matter exclusive within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. – Excepting that the writ petitioner was not able to examine the witnesses on his side, his representation was considered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and imposed the punishment. – In a departmental proceeding, the High Court cannot have powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sit as an Appellate Authority over the factual finding and substitute its own conclusion. – Court is also in agreement with the same and no interference is warranted in the Writ Appeal. – As stated supra, the writ appellant himself is dead and it is only the legal heirs, who are prosecuting the appeal which relates to disciplinary proceedings, it is only the procedure of the decision making process that can be reviewed and not the decision itself. – It is not the case of the writ appellant that the procedure prescribed in this behalf was not followed. – With the available findings, the authorities had conducted the enquiry, accepted the same and come to a right conclusion based on the available records holding that the writ appellant is guilty of the charges, in which, court find no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court.
Result: Writ Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 10.08.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.110 of 2006 on the file of this Court.)
1. Challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.110 of 2006, dated 10.08.2012, the above Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ appellant.
2. The appellant was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Thiruverambur Police Station from 21.05.2000. He died on 17.06.2020 pending the above Writ Appeal and his legal heirs, who are the appellants 2 to 5, are now prosecuting the same on his behalf.
3. The case of the writ appellant was that on 14.08.2000, he registered two cases, namely Crime Nos.576 and 577 of 2000 and investigated the same. It is stated that on 15.08.2000, the Chief Inspector Mr.Sankaralingam ordered the writ appellant to destroy the CD file in Crime No.576 of 2000 and further instructed him to alter the FIR in Crime No.577 of 2000 to Crime No.576 of 2000. As the writ appellant did not heed to his request, he was transferred on 31.08.2000 to the Economic Offences Wing-II, alleging disobedience. Challenging the said transfer, O.A.No.6782 of 2000 was filed by the writ appellant, in which, the transfer order was stayed and he was retained in Thiruverambur Police Station on 22.10.2000. He had further stated that he was put to sufferings due to the illegal and atrocious activities of the said Chief Inspector Mr.Sankaralingam, which constrained him to make a representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy on 08.11.2000. Pursuant to his complaint, the Additional Deputy Superintendant of Police enquired into the matter and submitted a report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy.
4. While so, the writ appellant was issued with a memo of charges, dated 26.06.2001 stating that the second respondent herein had proposed to hold an enquiry on him under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The writ appellant was given 15 days time to file his written statement to submit his defence. As many as seven charges were framed against the writ appellant. On receipt of the memorandum of charges, the writ appellant requested the second respondent to supply the documents as the same were not furnished to him and sought permission to examine the witnesses. The said request was rejected on 29.08.2002 stating that the documents were not necessary for the said enquiry and proceeded with the enquiry.
5. It was further stated that since the writ appellant did not come forward to inspect the documents within the time granted by the second respondent, he was not furnished with the copies of the documents. The further request of the writ appellant to produce the CD file in Crime Nos.576 and 577 of 2000 was also rejected. Therefore, on 09.09.2002, the writ appellant gave a representation to the first respondent stating that the enquiry was not conducted properly and it was not in accordance with Article 311 of the Constitution of India and requested for examining all the witnesses and permit him to get the copies of all the documents before the enquiry could end. On 03.04.2004, the report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the writ appellant and he was also called upon to give his explanation within 15 days. As per the report, all the charges framed against the writ appellant was proved. It is alleged that the report of the Enquiry Officer was absolutely baseless and that he was not guilty of any of the charges as alleged. While so, without considering any of the submissions made by the writ appellant, the second respondent found him guilty of the charges and mechanically agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service on 02.09.2004. An appeal was preferred before the first respondent on 04.10.2004, which was dismissed on 03.12.2004. Challenging the said order of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
