A. Godwin Jagadeeshkumar vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The appellant challenges the order dated 14 August 2013 in W.P. No. 6187 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, challenge made to the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 12, Public (Law and Order-A) Department dated 7 January 2009 was negatived.

Brief facts:

The Government initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on account of his involvement in a custody case. There was a magisterial enquiry with respect to the custodial violence on Sri. J. Satheeshkumar by the police officials attached to Theppakulam Police Station. The enquiry revealed the involvement of the appellant in the custodial violence inflicted on the complainant. The Revenue Divisional Officer recommended disciplinary action against the appellant. The recommendation was accepted by the Government resulting in issuing an order in G.O. Ms. No. 12, Public (Law and Order-A) Department, dated 07 January, 2009. The said order was challenged before the writ court on the ground that the complainant has already filed a private complaint and as such it is not open to the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The learned Single Judge negatived the said contention and dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court by way of this intra court appeal.

Discussion:

The report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer indicated the part played by the appellant. The appellant, who is expected to maintain law and order and to protect the life and liberty of the citizen himself became an aggressor and involved in the criminal act of custodial violence. The Revenue Divisional Officer has given a prima facie finding against the appellant which reads thus:

"Thiru. Godwin Jegadeeshkumar was the IO and SHO of Teppakulam Police Station. He along with Krishnamurthy, Driver was alleged to have attacked the Satheeshkumar and caused extensive injuries on his person. The independent testimony of Thiru. Pichaipandi who was working in the Barber shop near Ganesh Theatre, Madurai, Thiru Karuppathevar, who came to Aravind Hospital for eye check up, and Selvi Beevi who have witnessed the incident involving the police personnel around 5 PM on 25.2.2006 confirmed that the Inspector of Police along with Krishnamurthy, a Police Constable used as Driver attacked the said Satheeshkumar....

I submit that the two officials namely Thiru. Godwin Jagadeeshkumar, the Inspector of Police and Thiru. Krishnamoorthy, Head Constable cum Driver. It is no doubt that they have acted in excess of the authority conferred on them. It may have been due to the attitude of the accused, Thiru Satheeshkumar which would have been acted as a contributory factor. But the fact remains that as per the version of the independent witnesses and the medical professionals, both in the Government Rajaji Hospital and in the Apollo Hospital, the police have exceeded the powers authority conferred on them which resulted in causing injuries on Thiru Satheesh Kumar..... It goes without saying that the two police officials were squarely responsible for this unhappy incident which attracted adverse criticism in the press as well as hue and cry made by the public as well. It is inevitable that they should be brought to book. Hence I recommend that deterrent departmental action may be initiated against the aforesaid two officials for the serious lapse of causing injury while keeping Thiru Satheesh Kumar under the police custody..."

The learned counsel for the appellant has taken up a contention that the Police Standing Orders provides that in case the complainant has filed a private complaint, no further proceedings should be taken against the concerned officer. We are not in a position to accept the said contention. Private complaint in this case was filed by the complainant. The filing of private complaint has nothing to do with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant. The learned Single Judge has referred to the circumstances under which the Government directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. We fully agree with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge. The attempt of the appellant is to drag on the proceedings under one pretext or the order. We see no reason to entertain this writ appeal.

In the upshot, we dismiss the writ appeal. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs.