J. Jawaharlal vs The Additional Director General of Police

M.M. Sundresh, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 28.9.1987. Thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector of Police during the year 2001. While he was working in Mandharakuppam police station, Cuddalore District, the petitioner conducted a raid and detected a case on 8.2.2012, arrested four accused and seized materials used for gambling including the betting amount of Rs.1,770/-. All the accused were taken to the police station. The accused persons and the materials seized were handed over to one Panneerselvam, Special Sub. Inspector of Police, who was in-charge officer of the Station on that day.

It is not in dispute that as seen from the impugned order as well as the counter affidavit filed that the said Panneerselvam is competent officer to register the F.I.R. The first information report was not written on the same day. The petitioner in fact has signed in all the records and thereafter the accused were left on bail. Having found that the F.I.R has not been registered immediately as it was done subsequently on verification the following charge has been framed against the petitioner

''''Gross neglect of duty, deliberate and wilful omission to register FIR in a case of Gambling offence detected at Mandharakuppam by him personally on 8.2.2012 and illegal way of arrest and release of accused on bail on the same day in the raid offence that was assigned Mandharakuppam PS Cr.No.40/12 u/r 12 of Tamil Nadu Gambling Act''''.

An enquiry Officer was appointed, who found that the charge has been framed. proved. Accordingly, the petitioner was imposed punishment of postponement of next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on 30.12.2013 by quoting a memo sent by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range for not discharging his duty. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, no action has been taken against the Sub-Inspector of Police - Panneerselvam, who is competent officer to register F.I.R. When no action has been taken against the said Panneerselvam, the petitioner cannot be proceeded with. The Special Sub-Inspector of Police - Panneerselvam has also given a statement admitting that he was to register the F.I.R. In fact, the said Panneerselvam registered the F.I.R in Crime No. 40 of 2012 on the next day. The disciplinary authority held that even though the petitioner has handed over the seized properties and the accused to the Station In-charge Officer - Special Sub. Inspector of Police, Panneerselvam on 8.2.2012 for registering the F.I.R and proceeding further, it is his prime duty to verify the duty work of Special Sub. Inspector of Police and guide him properly. The following is the finding rendered by the disciplinary authority:

''''4. Though, the Inspector of Police had handed over the properties and accused to the station incharge officer SSI of Police, Tr. Panneerselvam on 8.2.2012 for registering of FIR and proceeding further, it is his prime duty to verify the work of the SSI of Police and to guide him properly. The delinquency had been clearly proved from the statements of PW 1 to 4 and 7 and prosecution exhibits 1 to 19 during the oral enquiry. This will not alter the delinquency committed by the Inspector of Police. Hence I agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and in the absence of any acceptable explanation, I award him the punishment of ''Postponement of next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect.''''

The above said finding appears to be very strange. After having given a finding that the said Panneerselvam has to register case, while taking no action against him for alleged dereliction of duty, action was taken against the petitioner. Though the disciplinary authority has stated that the delinquency of the petitioner has been proved it has not been stated as to how the charge has been proved. Similarly, the appellate authority has not considered the case of the petitioner and instead merely accepted the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer followed by the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a gold medal recipient and he has also produced the Special report Generalists and Administrations for the period from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012. The records would show that the performance of the petitioner is good and he has done an excellent work (during the ''''Thane'''' cyclone). Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that but for the present proceedings the petitioner would have been considered for the post of Deputy Inspector of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police on par with his batch mates.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the records produced, while setting aside the orders impugned, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Deputy Inspector of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.