C. Ravichandran vs Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Original Application in O.A. No. 1681 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present

writ petition.

The petitioner was directly selected as Sub-Inspector of Police in 1987. He was promoted as Inspector of Police on 05.01.2000. He received

more than 25 rewards for his efficient service. His entire record is without any blemish except the present impugned order. He was transferred and

posted to Fort Police Station, Trichy City on 23.06.2001. On 09.07.2001, a Crime Meeting was organised by the Commissioner of Police,

Trichy. He furnished the available particulars based on the records maintained in the police station at the said Crime Meeting. Further, the former

Chief Minister (the present Chief Minister) was arrested on 29.06.2001 that created a serious law and order problem. He handled the situation

that arose out of the arrest of the said VIP efficiently and there was no untoward incident in that area.

While so, a charge memo dated 16.07.2001 was issued under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and

Appeal) Rules (in short ""the Rules""). The following charge is alleged against him.

Charge:- Reprehensible conduct in having failed to furnish a correct particulars about pending NBWs in Fort PS.Cr. No. 1105/98, u/s 307 IPC

and also failed to scrutinize the case diaries of his station as well as gave a false reply that no NBW is pending is the above case to the Superior

Officer during crime meeting on 09.07.2001.

The crux of the allegation was that he failed to furnish correct particulars about the pending NBWs'' in Fort Police Station Crime No. 1105/98

u/s 307 IPC and failed to scrutinize the case diaries of his Station.

The petitioner gave a detailed explanation dated 06.09.2001. He categorically stated that he took charge of the police station only on

23.06.2001. The Ex.Chief Minister (the Present Chief Minister) was arrested on 29.06.2001 at Chennai and from that day onwards upto the date

of the meeting, he was not able to peruse any station records. He furnished details as per the records maintained by the Subordinates of the station.

The S.S.I. Mr. Panneerselvam, who was responsible for not making entries, has to be blamed for not furnishing the correct particulars about the

NBWs''. Either Mr. Panneerselvam, SSI, or the earlier Inspector of Police in charge of the said Police Station are to be blamed.

However, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Fort Range, Trichy City had submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law

and Order, Trichy City. Based on the said enquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner, the impugned order dated 03.10.2001 was passed by

the respondent, imposing the punishment of ""Censure to be deferred for three months"" from the date of the said order.

The petitioner filed Original Application in 1681 of 2002 (W.P. No. 9538 of 2007) praying to quash the aforesaid order dated 03.10.2001 of

the respondent.

Heard Ms. Nirmala Daisy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

I have perused the entire materials, including the detailed reply affidavit filed by the respondent.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though Rule 3(a) of the Rules, does not contemplate an enquiry, if the Department has

chosen to hold an enquiry, the petitioner should have been given opportunity to put forth his views and the report of the Enquiry Officer should be

furnished to the delinquent, before passing any order based thereon. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench

judgment of this Court in N. Subramanian v. Group Commandant, C.I.S.F. and Anr. reported in 2009 CIJ 739 Mad.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has rendered 25 years of service and that he has not suffered any

punishment whatsoever. It is submitted that he is entitled to receive Medal from His Excellency, the Honourable President of India, if there is

punishment free service for 25 years. The impugned order is the only hindrance for receiving the said Medal.

In my considered view, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with on the ground that the same was passed without furnishing the report

of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Furthermore, when the Assistant Commissioner Police

recorded a finding of guilt, he simply recorded without examination of witnesses and without any documents being marked as Exhibits. When he

acted as an Enquiry Officer, he should have followed the minimum requirement of a valid enquiry. In these circumstances, the impugned order

suffers from the serious infirmity and is liable to be interfered with.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner is also correct in her submissions that the Honourable Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B.

Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 categorically held that when the enquiry officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, the report of Enquiry

Officer should be furnished to the delinquent before passing the final order, irrespective of the fact, whether the final order results in imposition of

minor penalty or major penalty. The aforesaid dictum is not followed by the respondent in passing the impugned order.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.