J. Soosai Antony vs The Addl. Director General of Police, The Director General of Police and The Secretary to Government, Home Department

K. Suguna, J.—Initially, the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 2097/2003 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the

order of the 1st respondent dated 16.5.2000 and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.5.2002 and the same has been transferred to the file

of this Hon''ble Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 32810 of 2005.

By a charge memo dated 24.7.1998, on the allegations of lethargic attitude towards duty and failure to exercise proper control over his

subordinates, charges were framed against the petitioner and enquiry was conducted and by order dated 16.5.2000, punishment of reduction in

pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect was imposed. As against this, the petitioner filed an appeal to the 2nd respondent and the

2nd respondent, by order dated 10.5.2002, confirmed the same. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a review before the 3rd

respondent. Since no orders were passed on the same, the petitioner filed the above O.A. and the same has been transferred to the file of this

Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 32810 of 2005.

As per the charge memo, issued in the proceedings dated 24.4.1998, on 17.3.1994, at 23.30 hours, one Francis, Mohan and Manoharan,

concerned in Crime Nos. 374, 375 and 376 of 1994 registered u/s 75(1)B on the file of J-6 Police Station, Thiruvanmiyur, were arrested and

brought to the Police Station at 24.00 hours. The Inspector of the concerned Police Station had instructed to let off all the 3 persons on bail at

23.30 hours on 18.3.94. While Mohan and Manoharan were let off, Francis was illegally detained in the Police Station till 5p.m on 19.3.94.

During the illegal detention, Francis was mercilessly and brutally beaten by Head Constable 3879 - Chinna Karuppan. As a result, when Francis

was let off, he was able to survive hardly for 5 days and he died on 23.3.1994. Since, the petitioner was the Sub-Inspector of J-6 Police Station,

Thiruvanmiyur, during the relevant period, he was held responsible for the said occurrence and charges of lethargic attitude towards duty and

failure to exercise control over his subordinates were levelled against the petitioner by charge memo dated 24.4.1998. The enquiry officer, after

conducting enquiry, has given a finding, basing on the records of J-6 Police Station, Thiruvanmiyur and also on the evidence of one Mr. Ganesan,

who had been examined as the 9th witness of the department, that the said Francis was not detained after he was let off on bail at 11.30p.m. on

18.3.94. In spite of the above said finding, the enquiry officer has held that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are true. With regard to the

finding of the enquiry officer that Francis was not detained illegally subsequent to 11.30p.m. on 18.3.94, ie., after he was let off on bail, no

contrary finding has been given by the punishing authority. As such, unless and until the allegation that Francis was illegally detained after he was

released on bail on 18.3.94 is proved, the further allegation that he was beaten by the Head Constable during his illegal detention does not arise.

That apart, one Ganesan, examined as the 9th witness, on whose complaint, the said Francis, Mohan and Manoharan were taken into custody by

the police, has given a categorical statement that on 19.3.94, at 6a.m., while he was taking tea, he saw Francis in the tea-stall. He has categorically

deposed that the said Francis, while having tea with his friends, informed them that on the night of 18.3.94, he was released on bail. Therefore, as

observed earlier, even as per the finding of the enquiry officer, Francis was not illegally detained in J-6 Police Station after he was released on bail

at 11.30p.m. on 18.3.94. Unless the case of illegal detention is proved, the other instance, which is consequent to this, will automatically fall down.

As such, the allegations levelled against the petitioner have not been proved. That apart, the petitioner has, even in his reply, has taken a clear stand

that during the relevant time, he was not in the Police Station and he has given the detailed particulars of the work allotted to him. Neither the

punishing authority nor the appellate authority have given any reason for not accepting the contention of the petitioner. As far as the appellate

authority is concerned, since the enquiry officer has not accepted the contention of the petitioner, the same has been rejected by him also.

Admittedly, no finding has been given by the enquiry officer with regard to the stand of the petitioner that he was on other duty when Francis

detained in J-6 Police Station. As such, the reason basing on which the appellate authority passed the order holding that the charges have been

proved is totally unsustainable. That apart, when the criminal case initiated for the alleged assault of Francis by the Head Constable -

Chinnakaruppan has ended in acquittal and even as per the evidence of the doctor, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Francis, the

death was not due any assault. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner, namely, lethargic attitude towards duty and failure to

exercise proper control over his subordinates, in the absence of proof, cannot be sustained. When an appeal has been filed, so also, when a reply

has been submitted to the enquiry officer, the contention of the delinquent cannot be rejected without assigning any reason. Simply stating that the

submissions made by the delinquent cannot be accepted, in view of the finding of the enquiry officer, will certainly lead to the inference that the

order of punishment as well as the order in appeal have been passed mechanically, without any application of mind. Hence, when the allegations

levelled against the petitioner have been found to be baseless, the punishment imposed by the authority cannot stand. The impugned orders are set

aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.