AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner prays for a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two year.
The Petitioner while working as Head Constable in Prohibition Enforcement Wing in Pudukkottai District, during the year 2000, was advised to initiate proceedings for detaining one Karuppiah, Son of Raju Kandanpannai Kalam, Rapoosal, under Act 14 of 1982. Thiru. Karuppiah was known notorious prohibition offender. The Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 2441 of 2000 u/s 4(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act on 14.10.2000.
The case of the Petitioner, is that Thiru. Karuppiah got advance information, and to avoid arrest, lodged a complaint with Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, alleging therein, that police personnel attached to the Prohibition Enforcement Wing were demanding an illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) from him. After registering the complaint, a trap was laid. But, the trap failed.
Thereafter, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department decided to drop the further proceedings against the Petitioner and other police officials. The dropping of F.I.R was approved by the learned Magistrate on 05.04.2002.
The Petitioner was thereafter served with a Charge Memo u/s 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on the allegations, that the Petitioner had demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) from the Thiru. Karuppaiah, for not initiating action under Act 14 of 1982. The second charge, was that the Petitioner had registered a false case against Thiru. Karuppiah under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.
The explanation submitted by the Petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, and an enquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges levelled against the Petitioner. In the enquiry, Prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The complainant -Thiru. Karuppiah died before the commencement of the enquiry. In the enquiry proceedings, none of the 12 witnesses examined by the Prosecution supported the prosecution version.
The case of the Petitioner, is that P.W.10 on the other hand had supported the version of the Petitioner, that the case was registered on the advice of Additional Superintendent of Police, for initiating preventive detention of known notorious criminal Thiru. Karuppiah.
The prosecution also examined P.W.12 -the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, who had registered the F.I.R and thereafter dropped action and had submitted the Report to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
In spite of the fact, that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, the enquiry officer on the ground that P.W.12 proved the registration of the F.I.R, proceeded to hold the Petitioner guilty of the charges.
The Petitioner, on being issued a show cause notice with an Enquiry Report, filed his objection to the Report. The competent authority, finding No. force in the objections, accepted the Enquiry Officer''s Report and imposed the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two year.
The Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order of the competent Authority also failed. The Review also met with the same result.
The Petitioner, therefore, challenges the impugned order of punishment in this writ petition. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the impugned order, on the face of it, is arbitrary and amounts to colourable exercise of power, in as much as, the punishment is based on Enquiry Report, which is based on No. evidence, thus is perverse.
The other contention of the Petitioner, is that admittedly, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution had supported the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, and the F.I.R., placed on record by P.W.2, was also dropped after investigation, therefore, it could not be a basis to hold the Petitioner guilty.
In support of the contentions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down, that mere production of documents is not enough, the contents of documents are required to be proof by examining the witnesses.
It has been specifically laid down that F.I.R in itself is not an evidence without actual proof of facts stated therein.
The learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondents contends, that in this case, some of the witnesses, out of 12 examined had supported the prosecution version. The enquiry officer had based his finding on the said evidence. The enquiry report was accepted by competent authority. The finding of the competent authority has been upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as Reviewing Authority. It is therefore not open to this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction to re-open the matter and reverse the finding recorded on appreciation of evidence.
The learned Additional Government Pleader further contends, that F.I.R has been registered against Karupaiah belatedly therefore, there is No. cause for this Court, to interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Officer as well as punishment awarded to the Petitioner.
On consideration, I find No. force in the contentions of the learned Additional Government Pleader. The learned Additional Government Pleader has not able to point out anything in the evidence of any of the P.Ws to show any deposition connecting the Petitioner with the charges levelled. The witnesses only proved the registration of the F.I.R., which was dropped after investigation.
The registration of F.I.R was not the charge against the Petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader deserves to be noticed to be rejected.
In this case, admittedly, except for the F.I.R, which was eventually dropped, there is absolutely No. evidence against the Petitioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right in contending that the finding of the enquiry officer is based on No. evidence, thus perverse.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, to contend that when on the same charges the prosecution evidence is not believed, it would be unfair to hold the person guilty on the Departmental proceedings.
This contention of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. It is not the case, where the evidence was rejected by the Criminal Court, has been accepted in the Departmental proceedings. In the criminal case, No. evidence was led as the police on investigation, had decided to drop the proceedings. Even otherwise this contention cannot be accepted as it is well settled that despite acquittal in criminal case, person can be held guilty and punished in departmental proceedings vide Southern Railway Officers Assn. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . As already observed above, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right in contending that mere F.I.R is not a piece of evidence to hold the Petitioner guilty. Thus, the findings of the Enquiry Officer have to be held to be perverse being based on No. evidence thus not sustainable in law.
The impugned order passed by the punishing authority, appellate authority, and reviewing authority cannot be sustained, as they are based on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, which is held to be bad in law.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order of punishment is set aside.
The Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No. costs.