Madras High Court
The Superintendent Of Police vs Hariram Kumar on 4 January, 2024
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.2597 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 04.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.2597 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.21961 of 2023
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram.
3.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishanan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 04.
4.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Police II) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. .. Appellants
Vs.
Hariram Kumar,
S/o.Patturaj,
Formerly Gr-I PC.1731 (AR),
Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram. .. Respondent
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2597 of 2023
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 18.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.30180 of 2017 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.H.Prosper
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]
This writ appeal has been filed by the State against the order passed
by the learned Judge in W.P.No.30180 of 2017 on 18.08.2021.
2. The necessary facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are
that while the respondent was in service, he was issued with a charge memo
following the registration of a criminal case in Crime No.37 of 2013 for the
offences under Sections 3(1)(x1) and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 354,
451, 323 and 506(I) IPC. The said criminal case ended in acquittal, as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
witnesses turned hostile during trial in S.C.No.248 of 2013 on the file of the
Principal Sessions Court, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu. However,
in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent in
PR.No.4/2013 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate
Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, the charges against the
respondent were held as proved and the disciplinary authority imposed the
punishment of “Removal from service” against the respondent. The appeal
preferred by the respondent against the said order of punishment, came to be
rejected, by order dated 07.10.2014 of the second appellant and the mercy
petition, was also rejected by the fourth appellant, by order dated
25.06.2016. Challenging all these orders passed by the respective appellants,
the respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30180 of 2017 to quash the
same and direct the appellants to reinstate him into service and grant him all
consequential service and monetary benefits. By order dated 18.08.2021, the
learned Judge disposed of the said writ petition, in the following terms:
“36...this writ petition is allowed by modifying the order of the
punishment of dismissal from service with punishment of stoppage of
increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect for a period
of one year.
37. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner from the
date of his dismissal from service on 21.08.2014 together with attendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
benefits and further there will not be any pay cut during the period when the
petitioner was not in service since the petitioner was not allowed to work.
This exercise shall complete the same within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. ..”
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Judge, the present
appeal has been preferred by the appellants / State before this court.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellants submitted that both the charges framed against the respondent
were proved and the criminal case in Cr.No.37 of 2013 on the file of D1
Chengalpattu Town Police Station, then Kancheepuram District registered
for the offences under section 3(1)(X1) and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
Sections 354, 451, 323 and 506(I) IPC, ended in acquittal only due to the
complainant and other independent witnesses were turned hostile during
trial. Adding further, it is submitted that in the enquiry conducted by the
Enquiry Officer against the respondent, the defacto complainant Sumathi,
her parents and one Kuppan categorically stated about the presence of the
respondent in front of that house, assaulted them indiscriminately and also
threatened them with dire consequences on the midnight at about 11.00pm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on 18.01.2023 and there was no material contradiction elicited by the
respondent in the cross examination of the said witnesses during the course
of enquiry. Hence, the enquiry officer based on preponderance of
probabilities, had arrived at the conclusion that the charges against the
respondent were clearly proved. Relying on the report of the enquiry officer,
the appellant authorities imposed the punishment of removal from service on
the respondent. However, the learned Judge erred in modifying the same into
one of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect for
one year, besides awarding backwages. It is also submitted by the learned
Additional Advocate General that the delinquency committed by the
respondent is serious in nature; that, he was not honourably acquitted from
the charges, by the criminal court; and therefore, he was rightly imposed
with the punishment of removal from service. Without properly appreciating
the same, the learned Judge erroneously allowed the writ petition in favour
of the respondent, by the order impugned herein, which will have to be set
aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the learned Judge after analysing the facts and circumstances of the
case, has rightly set aside the orders passed by the appellant authorities and
allowed the writ petition in favour of the respondent and the same need not
be interfered with by this court.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. It appears that the respondent was issued with a charge memo
containing two charges viz., (i) he wilfully evaded from his guard duty on
18.01.2013 at about 12.00 noon, entrusted to him at Sriperumbudur,
Pennalur EB office, by simply making entries at the Record Book, as he was
suffering from stomach pain and proceeded to hospital without any
permission or leave from his superior officers and went to his native place at
Chengalpet; and (ii)On the same day i.e., on 18.01.2013, at 11.00pm at
Thattanmalai Street, Chinnanatham, near his residence at Chengalpet, he
had attempted to enter into the house of one Sumathi, belonging to
downtrodden Irula Community and when the same was questioned by her
father, the respondent assaulted him and the female members in the family.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In this regard, Cr.No.37/2013 on the file of Chengalpet Town Police Station,
came to be registered against him, for the offences under sections 451, 354,
323, 506(1) IPC r/w sections 3(1)(ix) and 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Admittedly, the criminal case registered against the
respondent ended in acquittal on the ground that all the witnesses i.e., PW1
to PW7 except official witnesses, turned hostile and not supported the case
of prosecution. However, in the departmental proceedings, the enquiry
officer gave a report that the charges were proved, based on which, the
disciplinary authority passed the order of removal from service against the
respondent and the same was affirmed by the appellate as well as revisional
authorities by the orders impugned in the writ petition. All these orders were
quashed and the punishment of removal from service clamped on the
respondent was modified into one of stoppage of increment for six months
without cumulative effect for one year, besides awarding backwages, by the
learned Judge in the writ petition filed by the respondent. The said order of
the learned Judge is questioned by the appellant authorities in this writ
appeal.
7. The law is well settled that the standard of proof required for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by
way of disciplinary proceedings is entirely different. In a criminal case, the
onus of establishing guilt of the accused is on the prosecution, until proved
beyond reasonable doubt. In case, the prosecution failed to take steps to
examine crucial witnesses or the witnesses turned hostile, such acquittal
would fall within the purview of giving benefit of doubt and the accused
cannot be treated as honourably acquitted by the criminal court. Whereas, in
a case of departmental proceedings, the guilt may be proved on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, in respect of the second
charge, the learned Judge held that since the facts and the evidence in both
the proceedings viz., the departmental proceedings and the criminal case
were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction,
which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the
criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be
applicable to the instant case; and therefore, in the light of the criminal court
judgment dated 24.04.2015 passed in SC No. 248 of 2013, the punishment
imposed on the respondent, based on this charge, is wholly unsustainable. It
is to be noted at this juncture that before the order of acquittal passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
criminal court, the respondent was inflicted with the punishment of removal
from service, vide order dated 21.08.2014, based on the enquiry report dated
16.07.2013 submitted by the enquiry officer. In such circumstances, this
court is of the view that it may not be appropriate to set aside the
punishment imposed on the respondent in the departmental proceedings,
solely relying on the criminal court judgment, in which, he was acquitted
from the charges, on the ground that the witnesses turned hostile and the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
8. In respect of the first charge, there is no dispute that the
respondent was absent from duty on 18.01.2023. The learned Judge in the
order impugned herein, has pointed out that the evidence of
N.Ramakrishnan, makes it very clear that the respondent had informed him
that he was unwell and therefore, he was taking leave and had requested him
to continue to remain in guard duty in his absence. It was also noted by the
learned Judge that the deposition of N.Ramakrishnan also makes it clear that
he had attempted to inform the superior about the fact that the respondent
was unable to report to duty on 18.01.2013 and since the telephone calls
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was not answered by the superior, he continued to be on guard. Having
stated so, the learned Judge was of the view that the explanation given by
the respondent regarding his absence from duty on 18.01.2013 appears to be
reasonable, however, being attached to the Battalion, the respondent ought
to have reported to a Government Hospital and to the Medical Officer or
approved Hospital before proceeding to take leave, but he had not followed
the clear protocol and was absent without availing medical leave; and hence,
he deserves the punishment. This court finds no infirmity or illegality in the
finding so rendered by the learned Judge.
9. At the same time, the order of the learned Judge modifying the
punishment of removal from service into one of stoppage of increment for a
period of six months without cumulative effect for a period of one year,
needs to be enhanced, having regard to the grave nature of the charges
framed against the respondent coupled with the fact that the respondent is
serving in a disciplined force, in which, people repose great faith and
confidence and hence, he must have impeachable character and integrity and
of utmost rectitude. Therefore, this court is inclined to enhance the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
punishment of stoppage of increment from six months to three years with
cumulative effect.
10. With the aforesaid modification, this writ appeal stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
04.01.2024
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
nsd
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram.
3.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishanan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 04.
4.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Police II) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
nsd
04.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
