Madras High Court
The Additional Chief Secretary vs K.Kannan on 20 January, 2021
W.A.No.23 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.23 of 2021
The Additional Chief Secretary
to Government of Tamil Nadu
Home (Police-2) Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. .. Appellant
Vs
K.Kannan .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 28.8.2019 in W.P.No.23644 of 2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
State Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.Sivakumar
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.23 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appeal is directed against a judgment and order of August
28, 2019 rendered on a writ petition challenging an order of
punishment passed in course of departmental proceedings. The
writ petitioner's increment was stopped for a period of two years
with cumulative effect. By the judgment and order impugned, the
writ Court found that there was no material on which the
disciplinary order could stand and the very presence of the
perceived delinquent at the place of occurrence had not been
established in course of the disciplinary proceedings.
2. The articles of charge issued to the perceived delinquent on
March 16, 2012, in substance, accused the perceived delinquent to
have abetted the suicide of one S.Ponnammal. It was alleged that
the perceived delinquent along with a colleague in the police had
brought one Settu to the police station to inquire about a quarrel
that had taken place, whereupon Settu's sister, S.Ponnammal came
to the police station and requested for her brother to be released.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.23 of 2021
The charge made out was that the perceived delinquent had
threatened S.Ponnammal with abusive words and, consequent to
such humiliation, Ponnammal returned home and committed
suicide by self-immolation. The charge referred to a statement
apparently made by Ponnammal at the Trichy General Hospital on
May 30, 2009. The pointed accusation against the writ petitioner
was that he had “indirectly abetted ... Ponnammal to commit
suicide by self-immolation.”
3. It appears that in course of the departmental proceedings,
the writ petitioner altogether denied his presence at the police
station on the night of May 23, 2009 when the writ petitioner is
alleged to have brought Settu to the police station to question him.
Indeed, in the order of punishment of the disciplinary authority
dated April 26, 2018, such authority noticed the alibi. It would do
best to set out the material referred to by the disciplinary authority
on such aspect that convinced the disciplinary authority that the
writ petitioner was present at the police station in the evening of
May 23, 2009:
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.23 of 2021
“3. The Government, have examined the charge, defence
statement of the delinquent officer, findings of the
Inquiry Officer and the further representation of the
delinquent officer on the findings of the Inquiry Officer
with the connected records carefully and independently.
The Accused Officer has stated that he was not present at
the place of occurrence or at the Police Station on the
date and time of occurrence as this was vouched by the
statement of PWs 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 19 and 20 and also
Sub-Inspector of Police Thiru.P.Sivaraman and revealed
through his daily dairies dated 23.5.2009 and 24.5.2009
cannot be accepted as the public Tmt.Mahalakshmi,
Sasikala, Saroja, Padma, Thangaponnu deposed before
the RDO also confirming the presence of Thiru.Kannan,
Inspector of Police and Thiru.Sivaraman, Sub-Inspector
of Police in the place of occurrence and they confirmed
their depositions before the RDO in oral enquiry also.
These depositions confirm the dying declaration of
Ponnammal...”
4. What is evident from the recording above is that several of
the prosecution witnesses corroborated the writ petitioner's version
that the writ petitioner was not present at the police station in the
evening of May 23, 2009. In the light of such evidence, there ought
to have been positive material referred to by the disciplinary
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.23 of 2021
authority to discard the oral testimony of the several witnesses –
prosecution witnesses, no less – and affirmatively establish that the
writ petitioner was, indeed, present at the place of occurrence.
What the disciplinary authority resorted to was the stale testimony
of Mahalakshmi, Sasikala, Saroja, Padma and Thangaponnu
rendered before the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is nobody's case
that such persons deposed in course of the disciplinary proceedings
that the writ petitioner was present at the place of occurrence. If
such persons had made such statement in course of the disciplinary
proceedings, the writ petitioner would have had a chance to cross-
examine them and, if upon such cross-examination it was one set of
words against another, the Enquiry Officer first and the disciplinary
authority later, would have been required to give cogent reasons to
prefer one version over the other. In the present case, those who
testified to the effect that the writ petitioner was present at the
place of occurrence were not made available for cross-examination
by the writ petitioner in course of the disciplinary proceedings. In
any event, the disciplinary authority does not indicate in the order
of punishment impugned in the writ petition as to why he chose the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.23 of 2021
statements of those named witnesses in preference to the uniform
statement made by several of the prosecution witnesses
corroborating the stand taken by the writ petitioner.
5. While the quality and quantity of the evidence is a matter
of assessment of the adjudicating authority, in any judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings, when one version is preferred to another, the
reasons that impel the authority to make the choice must be
evident. The impugned order of punishment is singularly lacking in
such aspect. In dealing with the principal ground urged in the writ
petition, the Court of the first instance has taken relevant
considerations into account and has appropriately pointed out that
the statements made by the named persons before the Revenue
Divisional Officer had no evidentiary value and, in any event, there
was no affirmative material indicated in the order of punishment to
justify the disciplinary authority choosing one statement over
another. Further, the alleged dying declaration of Ponnammal was
not even produced by the appellant herein as part of its counter-
affidavit before the Writ Court.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.23 of 2021
6. The second aspect that weighed with the learned Single
Bench was that Ponnammal had an axe to grind against the writ
petitioner and the family of Ponnammal would, naturally, be
unfavourably disposed towards the writ petitioner. It appears that a
charge of rape was brought by Ponnammal against the writ
petitioner sometime prior to the incident of May 23, 2009. Such
matter was apparently looked into by the State Human Rights
Commission and no substance was found in the complaint.
7. At any rate, a charge of abetting suicide is something which
is difficult to establish. While egregious conduct of cruelty may be
established in certain cases, particularly in a scenario under Section
498A of the Penal Code, when it comes to the everyday case of
suicide, a charge of abetment may only be seen to be established
when the act complained of is so wild so as to unfailingly drive the
victim to the most injudicious act to end his or her life. The charge
in this case was of a police officer having used abusive language
against the victim. The nature of the language is not indicated in
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.23 of 2021
the charge and what is abusive differs from one man's perception to
another's. Merely because someone is abused may not entail in the
person abused committing suicide. The charge-sheet does not
indicate any grievous insult inflicted on the deceased by the
perceived delinquent.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and order
impugned cannot be touched. The Court of the first instance quite
appropriately found that in the light of the perceived delinquent's
statement being corroborated by several prosecution witnesses that
he was not present at the place of occurrence, no affirmative
material had been brought out to demonstrate to the contrary.
Since the very presence of the perceived delinquent is the basis of
the charge as he could not have abused Ponnammal if he had not
been present at the relevant point of time, the consequence of the
lack of clarity as to the writ petitioner's presence was that the order
of punishment had to be set aside.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.23 of 2021
The appeal is without basis and W.A.No.23 of 2021 is
dismissed. The appellant is spared the costs despite the needless
appeal. Consequently, C.M.P.No.344 of 2021 is closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
20.01.2021
Index : Yes
sasi
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.23 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.23 of 2021
20.01.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
