Madras High Court
P. Ramasamy vs The Additional Director General ... on 7 February, 2022
1 W.A.No.166 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.02.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.166 of 2022
P. Ramasamy ... Appellant
Vs
1.The Additional Director General Of Police,
Law And Order,
Chennai 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
Prayer:Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent praying to
set aside the order of the Learned Judge made in WP.No. 17297 of 2007
(OA.No. 4116 of 2003) dated 01.12.2020.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Anandakumar
Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
&
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Instant Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 01.12.2020
made in W.P.No.17297 of 2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The Writ Petitioner who is the appellant herein worked as Sub
Inspector of Police was issued a charge memo for the following
misconducts numbering 4, which are extracted below:-
“(i) Reprehensible conduct in having screened evidence and
allowed the dead body concerned in Sathankulam P.S.Cr.No.447/96
U/s.498 (A) 302 and 201 IPC to be burnt on 19.11.1996.
(ii) Dereliction of duty in not registering a First
Information Report on 19.11.1996 under appropriate sections of
law immediately on receipt of information about the death of
Chellapappa which was subsequently registered as Sathankulam P.S.
Crime No.447/96 u/S.498 (A), 302 and 201 IPC on 03.12.1996.
(iii) Demanding and accepting illegal gratification of
Rs.2,000/- from the accused party Thiru.Gnanaraj and others in
Sathankulam P.S. Cr.No.447/96 u/s.498 (A), 302 and 201 IPC for doing
favour to the accused and
(iv) Reprehensible conduct in having entered on Medical
Leave from 18.12.1996 without obtaining prior permission from the
competent authority”.
3. The writ petitioner after conducting enquiry in the Departmental
Proceedings under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955 was imposed
with a punishment of dismissal from service on 12.07.2003. The appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
preferred by the appellant herein was also rejected on 23.10.2003.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Appellate Authority's order is a non speaking one and if the punishment of
dismissal is converted into the one of compulsory retirement for the 30
years of service rendered by him, he would get family pension. He prayed
this Court to show sympathy on the writ petitioner for his unblemished
services. He further submitted that though the petitioner was proceeded in a
criminal case in Crime No.447/96 under Sections 498(A), 302 & 201 IPC,
he was acquitted from the charges. A reading of the judgment of the
Criminal Court would reveal that witnesses have turned hostile and that the
charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further
submitted that since he has been acquitted by the criminal Court, even
though there is no bar for the departmental proceedings to proceed with the
enquiry, imposition of punishment is on the higher side and this Court may
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and interfere with the punishment.
5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
submitted that Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
report based on which Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of
dismissal from service. It is further submitted that acquittal from the
Criminal case is not a ground to exonerate the appellant from the charges so
as to extend all the benefits, especially when acquittal is not a honourable
one.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The main charge against the Appellant is that he has screened the
evidence and allowed the dead body concerned in Sathankulam Police
Station Crime No.447/96 under Section 498(A), 302 & 201 IPC to be burnt
on 19.11.1996 and that there is a dereliction of duty in non registration of
FIR on the very same day. It was also alleged that he demanded and
accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the accused and others for
doing favour to the accused. As rightly pointed out by the Appellant
Criminal Court verdict is not a bar to proceed against him in the
departmental proceedings. In this case, the writ petitioner has not been
acquitted honourably and was exonerated on the ground of benefit of doubt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The petitioner has joined the services of the Police Department in
the year 1996 and in respect of the charges in the enquiry, three witnesses
were examined and five documents were marked on the side of the
prosecution and on the side of the writ petitioner, neither oral evidence nor
documentary evidence was marked. On completion of the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 23.01.1998 before the Disciplinary
Authority and accepting the same the Disciplinary Authority/ The Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli, passed an order
of punishment of dismissal from service on 12.07.2003. On appeal, the
Appellate Authority/The Additional Director General of Police, passed an
order dated 23.10.2003 confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
It is not necessary that the Appellate authority has to pass a detailed order
and even the crux of the order would suffice to concur with the findings of
the Disciplinary Authority. In this case, as could be seen from the order of
the Appellate Authority dated 23.10.2003 at Paragraph No.6, the Appellate
Authority in nutshell has considered the submissions of the appellant herein,
which in our opinion cannot be said to be a non-speaking order.
9. The charges against the writ petitioner has been proved in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Departmental Enquiry, as the charges have been duly established on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities. We find no reason to interfere with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge as learned Single Judge has
rightly confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority, which affirmed the
order of the Disciplinary Authority. The charges are indeed very serious in
nature and hence we are of the view that this Court cannot grant the relief to
the writ petitioner.
10. In the result the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(S.V.N.J.,) (M.S.Q.J.,)
07.02.2022
dpq
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
dpq
To
1.The Additional Director General Of Police,
Law And Order,
Chennai 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
W.A.No.166 of 2022
07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
