IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Mr.T.Panneer Selvam - Appellant
Versus
The Commandant, TSP, 14th Battalion – Respondent
W.P.No.17569 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.20852 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.3230 of 2020
Decided on : 10-11-2022
Mandamus - Departmental Enquiry - TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955 - Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - The court directed the appointment of an independent Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the corruption charges against the petitioner, emphasizing the need for a fair and expeditious process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Inspector of Police, filed a writ petition seeking to stop the Departmental Enquiry against him for alleged demand and acceptance of bribe without furnishing certain documents. The petitioner was previously arrested and suspended in connection with a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's plea to stop the Departmental Enquiry and directed the appointment of an independent Enquiry Officer to ensure a fair and expeditious process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Departmental Enquiry should proceed without furnishing certain documents to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges against the petitioner were serious and there was no bar for the authorities to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings. However, it emphasized the need for a fair and expeditious process by appointing an independent Enquiry Officer.
Final Decision: The court directed the Director General of Police to appoint an Enquiry Officer within two weeks to conduct an enquiry into the corruption charges against the petitioner, and instructed the petitioner to cooperate for the early disposal of the disciplinary proceedings.
ORDER :
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 2nd respondent from proceeding with the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner in PR.No.37/2017 dated 06.10.2017 vide “Ani Tha.Pa.No.37/2017“ under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955 without furnishing the true copies of Sentry Relieving Register Nos.02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 and 12 as well as the In-Out Register of the 15th Battalion, Vellore District within time frame.
The writ of Mandamus has been filed to forbear the 2nd respondent from proceeding with the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner in PR.No.37/2017 dated 06.10.2017 vide “Ani Tha.Pa.No.37/2017 “under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955 without furnishing the true copies of Sentry Relieving Register Nos.02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 and 12 as well as the In-Out Register of the 15th Battalion, Vellore District within time frame.
2. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent is proceeding with the departmental disciplinary proceedings without furnishing the crucial documents to the writ petitioner. The allegation against the writ petitioner is that while he was working as Inspector of Police in TSP, 15th Battalion, Vellore District, one Constable D.Thirumurthy (PC 1810) lodged a complaint with Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department as if the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for sanctioning 10 days of Casual Leave. Two charges were framed against the writ petitioner, relating to demand of bribe from the Constables for sanctioning leave. Regarding the demand of bribe, a Criminal Case was registered against the writ petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The petitioner submitted a letter to the second respondent on 30.03.2018, seeking certain documents. The petitioner has further stated that the first respondent sent a letter to the second respondent on 24.03.2018, stating that the out registers are not available. The 2nd respondent in his letter dated 03.04.2018, has further stated that the documents sought for by the petitioner are not traceable. The Enquiry Officer issued notice to the writ petitioner to participate in the process of enquiry in vide letter dated 26.06.2018. Instead of participating in the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition, stating that the documents are to be produced and in the absence of those documents, he cannot participate in the enquiry proceedings.
4. The first respondent filed a counter statement, stating that while the writ petitioner was serving as Inspector of Police in -A- Company of Tamilnadu Special Police XV Battalion, Sevoor, Vellore District, one D.Thirumoorthy, Naik-1810 preferred a complaint before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Vellore unit against the petitioner on 27.06.2016 at about 12.00 hours, alleging that the petitioner had been demanding Rs.2000/- for sanctioning leave for 10 days from 20.06.2016 to 08.07.2016. The said complaint was forwarded to the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Chennai, who had issued orders vide No.PE/110/2016/Pol/VI to conduct preliminary enquiry in this regard and the same was registered on 27.06.2016 at about 13.00 hours. During the course of enquiry, the conversation between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was recorded through audio recorder and the petitioner-s demand for Rs.1,500/- (Reduced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1500/-) for sanctioning of 10 days leave and the allegation of having obtained of Rs.500/- already from the complainant for Briyani were confirmed. As the prima facie of the allegation against the petitioner was established, a case in Cr.No.7/2016 Under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was registered by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Vellore Unit on 28.06.2016 at 11.30 hours and a trap was organized on the same day at
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of conducting fair and expeditious departmental disciplinary proceedings, especially in cases involving serious charges such as corr....
The pendency of criminal proceedings does not necessarily defer a departmental enquiry, and a government servant has the right to engage a lawyer for assistance in a disciplinary enquiry.
Disciplinary proceedings must be timely and based on adequate evidence; undue delay can infringe on the right to a fair hearing.
Disciplinary dismissals must respect procedural fairness and natural justice, ensuring proper evidence is presented and that the accused has a fair opportunity to defend against alleged misconduct.
Protracted disciplinary proceedings without valid justification, especially post-acquittal in criminal cases, constitute harassment and must be quashed.
The absence of evidence and witness examination in departmental proceedings renders dismissal unsustainable, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.