Madras High Court
The Additional Chief Secretary To ... vs Dr.A.Manivannan on 29 January, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5912 of 2020
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Police – 2) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram. ... Appellants /
Respondents
Vs.
Dr.A.Manivannan ... Respondent/
Petitioner
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.22742 of 2019, dated 06.01.2020.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/9
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
For Appellants : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.J.Anandkumar
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, who upon finding that there is no material to substantiate the charges, set
aside the punishment of Censure imposed and accordingly, allowed the Writ
Petition.
2.Before considering the rival submissions made, the factual
background requires narration.
3.A sensational murder took place. One Station House Officer, by
name, P.Jeyachandran took up the investigation. A special team was formed to
nab the accused. The respondent/writ petitioner was the Deputy Superintendent
of Police at the relevant point of time.
4.The respondent/writ petitioner was giving oral instructions to the
Investigation Officer and reporting the progress to the Higher Officers, namely,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
the Superintendent of Police. He earned the appreciation and approval of his
higher officers for the arrest of the accused.
5.One of the accused approached this Court, after dismissal of the
discharge petition, by filing revision. Having found that the investigation was
perfunctory and defective, this Court while disposing of the matter, made strong
remarks against the Investigation Officer, namely, P.Jeyachandran.
6.Incidentally, a charge sheet was filed exonerating five accused
persons. This Court awarded compensation for wrongly arraying them as
accused, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court with a modification
in respect of the compensation.
7.On that basis, a departmental proceeding has been initiated against
the respondent/writ petitioner. The charges against him was dereliction of duty
and violation of Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct
Rules, 1973. 10 Witnesses were examined. Witness Nos.1 to 8 did not make
any incriminating statement against the respondent/writ petitioner. P.W.9 has
stated that the subsequent investigation of the case was taken up by a team of
Officers under the leadership of Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
P.W.10 was added subsequently, who is none other than the Writer in the Deputy
Superintendent of Police Camp Office, Rameswaram. These two witnesses
alone implicated the respondent/writ petitioner to the charges.
8.The Enquiry Officer gave the following finding with respect to the
charges levelled:-
''As regard to the violation of Rule 20(i) of Tamil Nadu
Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, the delinquent being the
immediate superior to the I.O. and Sub Divisional Police Officer, had
supervised the investigation of the case to a certain extent. The Dy.
Inspr. Genl. of Police, Ramanathapuram, visited Uchipuli and apprised
of the fact of arrest of six persons and gave instructions to arrest the
remaining accused by forming Special teams. As such, the delinquent
was in direct liaison with senior officers earning their appreciation and
latent approval regarding arrest of accused. In the absence of any
written direction from his superiors, the delinquent has not evaded his
responsibility, but acted in his best judgment and maintained absolute
integrity and devotion to duty in the brutal and gruesome murder of six
persons. Hence, the question of misconduct in violation of Rule 20(i) of
the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 does not
arise.
In brief, only because of the failure of the delinquent to
arrange for ''Identification Parade'' and recording 164(i) Cr.P.C.
Statements, while supervising the investigation of the Inspector, the
investigation was observed to be perfunctory and ordered for a re-
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
investigation and award of compensation to the accused deleted from
the second final report. As such, the delinquent has committed
dereliction of duty and violated PSO.I-142 to a certain extent while
supervising the investigation of the Inspector in Uchipuli PS Cr.No.
301/2012.
Hence, from the perusal of statement of P.Ws.1 to 10, Exhibits
in P.Exhibits 1 to 15 and defence exhibits D. Exhibits 1 to 5, I hold the
charge against the delinquent partially proved beyond reasonable
doubts.''
9.Thus, the Enquiry Officer after holding that the respondent/writ
petitioner was dutiful and there is no violation of Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, nonetheless, proceeded to hold that
the charges have been proved partially, as he has failed to arrange for test
identification parade and recording 164(1) Cr.P.C. statement during his
supervision. Incidentally, the Enquiry Officer made his conclusion upon
perusing the statements of P.Ws.1 to 10 and Exs.P.1 to P.15 and Exs.D.1 to D.5.
10.The aforesaid report was accepted by the disciplinary authority and
confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.
11.The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition inter alia
holding that the respondent/writ petitioner was neither the Investigation Officer
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
nor asked to do the said job. He was appreciated by the Higher Officers and
there is no material to substantiate the charges levelled against him. Challenging
the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
12.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants submitted that because of the defective investigation, compensation
was made to be given by the State. The respondent/writ petitioner was asked to
oversee and supervise the investigation. There was a subsequent development
in dropping the names of five accused at the time of filing the charge sheet. The
respondent/writ petitioner has not instructed the Investigation Officer to
conduct the test identification parade and recording the statement under Section
164(1) Cr.P.C.
13.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ
petitioner submitted that there is no need either for recording 164(1) Cr.P.C.
statement before the learned Magistrate or for conducting a test identification
parade, since there was no eyewitness in the case. The finding of the Enquiry
Officer was in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner and the evidence of
P.Ws.9 and 10 ought not to have been accepted, as the subsequent investigation
was taken up by P.W.9 and P.W.10 - Writer, is not entitled to speak about the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
charges levelled against the respondent/writ petitioner, as he has not involved in
the investigation.
14.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
15.The learned Single Judge rightly found that the charges are not
proved. It is settled law that in a departmental proceeding, it is for the
Department to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent officer. P.Ws.1
to 8 are the Officers, who are involved in the investigation. Their evidence
should carry more weight.
16.In any case, the role of the respondent/writ petitioner is merely to
supervise. The recording of the fact by the Enquiry Officer as mentioned above,
would clearly show that the respondent/writ petitioner did his part to the best of
his ability. The charges cannot be divided, as there is no violation of Rule 20(1)
of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 and lack of
supervision. If at all the criminal case was one of no direct eyewitness, there is
no need for a direction to the Investigation Officer to put the witness through
test identification parade or taking him before the learned Magistrate for
recording statement under Section 164(1) Cr.P.C.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
17.Thus, considering the above, we do not find any error in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
18.In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No [M.M.S.J.,] [S.A.I.J.,]
Internet :Yes 29.01.2021
smn2
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
smn2
W.A.(MD)No.1085 of 2020
29.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
