Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2264
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
M. Pugalendi – Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 15767 of 2012
Decided On : 27-07-2023
For the Petitioner:K. Venkatramani, Senior Counsel For M. Muthappan, Advocate. For the Respondent: T. Seenivasan, Special Government Pleader.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of conducting an enquiry when charges are refuted, and the mandatory nature of procedural steps such as providing a copy of the enquiry report and issuing a second show cause notice before imposition of penalty.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Notional Promotion - TNPSS (D&A) Rules, 1955 - Section 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing order - W.P.No.26265 of 2007 - O.K.Bhardwaj V. Union of India and others, 2002 SCC (L&S) 188 - W.P.No.34587 of 2005
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent and to grant notional promotion. The petitioner was directly recruited as a Sub-Inspector of Police in 1987, promoted as Inspector of Police in 2001, and faced charges of neglect of duty resulting in censure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's denial of charges should have led to an enquiry, and the failure to provide a copy of the enquiry report and issue a second show cause notice before imposition of punishment constituted procedural lapses, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. The petitioner was granted notional promotion and one increment in pension benefits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the charges, the necessity of an enquiry when charges are denied, and the procedural lapses in the disciplinary process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of an enquiry when charges are refuted, the need for providing a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent, and the mandatory nature of issuing a second show cause notice before imposition of penalty, even for minor penalties.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted notional promotion and one increment in pension benefits.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by them in J2/PR120/96, dated 26.12.1996 C.No.A.P.30/D2/97 dated 03.06.1997, RC.No.AP.1(1)/262621/97 dated 09.05.1998 and RC.No.016977/AP1(1)/2010 dated 20.03.11.)
1. The petitioner filed the above Writ Petition in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent and to grant notional promotion.
2. The service matrix of the petitioner are that:
(i) The petitioner was directly recruited as a Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1987 and appointed to service on 28.09.1987. Promoted as Inspector of Police on 08.02.2001.
(ii) While the petitioner was serving in Dharapuram Police Station, he was dealt with on a charge in PR.No.120/J2/1995 u/r 3(a) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules, 1955 for the following delinquencies. (a), (b) & (c) Gross neglect of duty in not investigating the cases properly, promptly and in not writing Case Diaries and submitting final reports in the court in time in the cases investigated by him during the period from 15.03.1994 to 05.05.1995, by his Head Constable from 07.04.1993 to 05.05.1995 and his predecessors from 07.11.1993 to 05.05.1995.
(iii) Resulted in award of punishment of censure and appeal was dismissed by the second respondent and Review was dismissed by the third respondent. Mercy Petition was also dismissed by the fourth respondent and hence the Writ Petition.
3. The sum and substance of the counter is that it is the bounden duty of the station House Officer (i.e., Sub-Inspector of Police) to investigate the cases reported in his Police Station limits and pending at the time of his tenure period also and to submit case diaries. It is also the duty of Station House Officer to peruse the investigation daily and submit the final reports within the time prescribed. If any misunderstanding exist between the petitioner and Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Circle, it would have been informed to the Higher Officials.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that he could advance the argument only on the legality not on facts and further contended that once a delinquent denied the charges, the Department has appointed a Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer had chosen to submit a report without holding the enquiry and hence it is same is bad in law. Enquiry has to be conducted and copy of the enquiry report has to be furnished and hence it vitiates the enquiry proceedings relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.26265 of 2007, dated 01.04.2009.
6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that on the date of issuance of charge memo under Section 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing order, the petitioner herein had too deferred censure and in view of the issuance of charge memo, they become operational. Consequently, he has to suffer punishment in censure and hence his name could not be included in the panel as on 01.06.1997. Since the deferred censure came into force on 26.12.1996 and hence he was promoted only in the year 1999-2000.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject matter of punishment namely censure is to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for notional promotion for the period 1998 and 1999 and the petitioner is satisfied even if one increment in pension consequent therefor is given.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the petitioner herein has submitted his explanation through proper channel on 14.04.1996 wherein he has categorically denied the charges consequently enquiry has to be conducted.
9. Yet another point is that he has taken a specific stand that confirmation of outstanding deferred punishment or cancellation of the same is to
