Madras High Court
A. Chandra Mohan vs The Commandant on 12 July, 2021
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :12.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2008
W.P. No.19681 of 2008
A. Chandra Mohan
S/o. Annadurai ...Petitioner
vs.
1. The Commandant
T.N. Special Police III Battalion
Veerapuram, Chennai 55
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Armed Police, Chennai 10
3. The Director General of Police
Chennai 4 ... Respondents
W.P. No.19682 of 2008
P. Udaya Kumar
S/o. S.P. Pancharathinam ...Petitioner
vs.
1. The Commandant
T.N. Special Police III Battalion
Veerapuram, Chennai 55
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Armed Police, Chennai 10
3. The Inspector General of Police
Armed Police, Trichy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
4. The Director General of Police
Chennai 4 ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P. No.19681 of 2008: Writ Petitions filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents in connection with
the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1,2 & 3 in
P.R.No.08/2005 dated 14.07.2005, Rc.No. C2/Appeal/39/05 dated
16.09.2005 and Rc. No.56901/83(1)/2001 dated 28.05.2008 respectively
and quash the same and further direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioners into service with consequential service and monetary benefits.
Prayer in W.P. No.19682 of 2008: Writ Petitions filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents in connection with
the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1,2,3 & 4 in respondents
1,2 & 3 in P.R.No.07/2005 dated 14.07.2005, Rc.No. C2/Appeal/38/05
dated 16.09.2005 and Rc. No.C2/25720/2005 dated 03.11.2005 and Rc.
No.39604/AP.3(1)/2008 dated 15.05.2008 respectively and quash the
same and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into
service with consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr. K. Venkatramani, Senior Counsel
(in both petitions) for Mr. M. Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr. C. Selvaraj,
(in both petitions) Government Advocate (Civil side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed against the impugned orders
of the respondents 1, 2 & 3 dated 14.07.2005, 16.09.2005 and
30.05.2008 respectively and to quash the same and to further direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service with consequential
service and monetary benefits.
2. The petitioners were issued with the charge memo in
proceedings Tha.Pa. No.08/2005 and Tha.Pa. No.07/2005 dated
08.04.2005 respectively and they filed their defence statement on
31.05.2005. The enquiry was conducted and completed within a period
of 10 days and the report was submitted on 10.06.2005. The petitioners
were directed to submit their objections within a period of 15 days and
the said enquiry report was served on them on 29.06.2005 granting 15
days time for submitting their objections to the enquiry report. The 15
days time limit expired on 14.07.2005. However, the petitioners have
made their representation seeking extension of time for submitting their
objections. But the Disciplinary Authority rejected their request for
extension of time on 13.07.2005 and passed the orders on 14.07.2005,
thereby removing the petitioners from service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
3. It is required to be noted that the Criminal Court, by its order
dated 15.06.2006, has acquitted them from the charges in C.C. No.568 of
2005. The petitioners made an appeal to the Appellate Authority, which
was rejected vide Rc. No.C2/Appeal 39/05 and Rc. No.C2/Appeal 38/05
dated 16.09.2005, wherein it is mentioned that since the petitioners have
not submitted their explanation within the stipulated time, the punishing
authority has passed the orders after discussing all the delinquencies
committed by the appellants in depth in "F" order. It is also observed
that the appellants have not disputed the delinquencies committed by
them in the appeal petition. Therefore, the charge that they quarreled
with another police constable and involved in criminal acts, thereby
brought disrepute to the police force have been proved and they were
rightly punished by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, as stated
supra, they were acquitted from the criminal case as charges were not
proved. Hence, they filed a mercy petition before the Director General of
Police, which was also rejected in Rc. No.56901/AP.3(1)/2008 and Rc.
No.39604/AP.3(1)/2008 dated 30.05.2008. Aggrieved over the same, the
present Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
4. I have heard the submissions on both side. From the materials
produced before this Court, it is seen that from the beginning the
delinquent petitioners have been stating that they were not under the
habit of drinking liquor and that a false case has been foisted against
them due to previous enmity with S.I. by name Paneerselvam. They were
victimised at the influence of the officers who have inimically disposed
against them. It is noted that during the enquiry also many of the
witnesses have turned hostile. In the enquiry report, the enquiry officer
gave a categorical finding that even though allegations were made
against the petitioners that they uttered vulgar, filthy or unparliamentary
language, it was not established by proper evidence. Even though it is
proved that they visited the liquor shop, it is not proved that they have
consumed liquor. From the records it is seen that the police have sent
the delinquents to the medical test and it was reported that there was no
trace of consumption of liquor. Further, there was a categorical finding
by the enquiry officer that there is no evidence to establish that the
petitioners quarreled with other police personnel namely Sakthivel
Nayak 320 and that they prevented one Babu Nayak 445 from
discharging his duties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
5. The entire enquiry report proceeds to the finding that the
charges were not proved by proper evidence. However, it is found that by
registration of a crime in Crime No.519/05, they have brought disrepute
to the police force and hence the charges were held to be proved.
6. It is pertinent to note that the principles of natural justice
requires ample opportunity to be provided to the delinquents to
effectively defend their case. It is noted that they were served with the
enquiry report on 29.06.2005 and directed to submit their objections
within 15 days. As observed supra, 15 days time expired on 14.07.2005,
that means, till 14.07.2005, the petitioners were entitled to submit their
objections against the enquiry report. It is expected that a fair
disciplinary officer shall await for the objection and consider the same in
detail and apply his mind and pass final orders. But, strangely, in this
case, the delinquents have sought for extension of time on 12.07.2005
and that was rejected on 13.07.2021 and the copy was forwarded to them,
which means, the petitioners would have received the rejection of their
request either by 13.07.2005 or by 14.07.2005. When the request was
rejected on 13.07.2021, hardly one day time was there to submit their
objection. But, strangely, this one day time was also denied to them and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
the final orders were passed on 14.07.2005, which means, the final orders
have already been prepared and issued on 14.07.2005 without waiting
for the explanation of the delinquents. Such kind of orders within the
time granted for submission of objections to the enquiry report is
absolutely violative of principles of natural justice and it shows that it is
a pre-determined order. Pre-determined orders shall be construed tainted
with malafides.
7. Furthermore, the petitioners made an appeal against the order of
punishment, wherein they have raised the point that, they are tee totalers
and never consumed liquor. Further they have taken the support of the
enquiry report and the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer to
dis-prove the charges framed against them. It is expected that the
appellate authority shall apply his mind to the grounds of appeal raised
by the appellants and pass a reasoned order for not accepting the
grounds. But, contrary to the facts, the appellate authority records that
the appellants were given 15 days time to submit their objections, but,
they have not submitted their objections within the stipulated time and
that the final order was passed within 15 days time in accordance with
the settled procedure. Such an order is without application of mind and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
discharge of duties in a mechanical manner. There is no discussion about
the time sought for by the appellants for submitting their objections.
Further, the petitioners clearly denied the charges before the enquiry
authority as well as before the appellate authority. But the Appellate
Authority records that the appellants have not disputed the delinquencies
committed by them in their appeal. Such a finding is absolutely
perverse, contrary to evidence and without application of mind.
8. Later, the Criminal Court has given a categorical finding in its
judgment that the complainant in C.C.No.568 of 2005 had pretended
before the doctor as though he was suffering from pain. The doctor who
was examined as P.W.1 before the Criminal Court has categorically
deposed that the defacto complainant has pretended and he has not stated
to him that he was assaulted by anybody and the details as to when and
where and by whom he was assaulted. The Criminal Court has given a
categorical finding that if the incident was true, the defacto complainant
would have stated the same to the doctor (P.W.1) at the time of
admission for treatment. Therefore, the Criminal Court has dis believed
the evidence of allegation made by the prosecution and held that the
petitioners were not guilty of their offences. In the opinion of this Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
the petitioners were not acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubts, but
it was decided that they were not guilty of their offences. If that is so,
filing of police complaint and implication of the petitioners in the
enimical case is false. The person who had given the false complaint
should be penalized. This material fact has not been considered by the
superior authorities. However, unfortunately, when they submitted the
mercy petition to the Director General of Police along with the orders
passed by the Criminal Court, the same was not considered and it was
rejected with an observation that no fresh point for consideration has
been made. The subsequent developments and categorical findings of
the Criminal Court were not at all considered. Such non application of
mind and non consideration of the material fact is alien to service
jurisprudence and is violative of principles of natural justice.
9. In that view of the matter, I consider it a fit case for setting aside
the impugned orders and remitting back to the disciplinary authority to
provide an opportunity to the delinquents to submit their further
representation to the enquiry report and pass a reasoned order after
applying mind to all the material evidence placed before it.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
10. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed in P.R.No.08/2005
and P.R.No.07/2005 dated 14.07.2005 of the first respondent stand set
aside and consequently the orders passed by the Appellate Authority also
stand set aside. The petitioners are directed to submit their further
representation to the first respondent within a period of 14 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order and the first respondent is directed
to pass final orders within a period of four(4) weeks thereafter.
11. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are ordered. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.07.2021
Index:Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking / Non-Speaking order
Bga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
Copy to
1. The Commandant
T.N. Special Police III Battalion
Veerapuram, Chennai 55
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Armed Police, Chennai 10
3. The Director General of Police
Chennai 4
4. The Inspector General of Police
Armed Police, Trichy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
Bga
W.P.Nos.19681 & 19682 of 2008
12.07.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
