K. Thayumanavan vs Director General of Police and Others

The appellant, while working as a Police Constable Grade I in Tiruvarur Taluk Police Station, was placed under suspension on 26.12.2007 pending enquiry on grave charge of having harboured dangerous criminal in the town. A charge memo was issued on 28.1.2008 to the effect that he has given asylum to the accused person Mr. Sakthivel alias Sakthi, who was wanted in many murder cases. The police could not arrest him because of the information given by the writ petitioner to him about police''s intended action. The charge memo was served along with Article of Charges and other relevant documents and list of witnesses. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and submitted a detailed report holding the charge proved. The disciplinary authority, Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District issued a show-cause notice dated 29.8.2008 calling upon the petitioner to submit a representation in respect of the enquiry report for taking suitable action by the disciplinary authority. A representation was also submitted thereto. The disciplinary authority, having considered the charge and also after having examined the representation submitted by the petitioner, imposed the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect to have effect for his future increments. There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, by an order dated 12.03.2009, having examined all papers, affirmed the findings of the disciplinary authority as the charge proved. Further appeal was made to the Director General of Police, first respondent, which was also rejected on 11.06.2009.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ petition seeking to quash the punishment order issued by the third respondent pursuant to this proceedings, viz., final order made in K1/PR.07/2008 u/R. 3(b) dated 03.10.2008, as confirmed by the second respondent made in C. No. B2/Appeal 06/2009 dated 12.03.2009 as further confirmed by the first respondent pursuant to his proceedings made in R.C. No. 076538/AP.I(1)/2009 dated 11.06.2009 and consequently to direct the third respondent to restore the petitioner''s scale with all increments besides disbursing the amount reduced from the petitioner''s regular scale. The learned single Judge, having examined the case, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ appeal.

The case of the appellant/writ petitioner before the writ court was that the respondents Department had not considered the contents of the conversation between the writ petitioner and the accused. It was further contended that the fact that the accused had escaped from the arrest on account of the information given by the writ petitioner is not proved. The said accused was a motor mechanic in that area. The appellant/writ petitioner used to meet him in respect of some repair works. He had never submitted any information to the accused and also had not facilitated the accused to escape from the arrest and further proceedings.

On the other hand, it was contended by the respondents State that the enquiry officer examined the facts from all angles and came to the conclusion that the appellant/writ petitioner had spoken to the said accused not only once or twice, but on 27 occasions. This clearly establishes the complicity of the appellant/writ petitioner in helping the accused for avoiding arrest and creating obstacle in the investigation. The accused remained absconding during the period from 08.12.2007 to 12.12.2007 on account of the information submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner, who happened to be a uniformed employee of the police department.

We have examined the case, perused the enquiry report and other documents. The contention of the appellant that the appellant used to meet the accused on account of some repairs as he was the only mechanic in the area has not been found as proved. Within a period of five days, the appellant had contacted the accused on 27 times through mobile phone to keep him informed about police action to arrest him. The police could not arrest him for a long time. No reasonable person can take any other view except that the appellant was in complicity with the accused to evade the arrest in the alleged case of murder, wherein the accused was allegedly involved. The officers in the police force are required to work with commitment and dedication. The dedication of members of the police force is to the cause of the force, not to help any accused person or to create an obstacle in the investigation and further proceedings. It has been found proved in all probabilities that the appellant had helped the accused in evading arrest and also creating obstacle in the process of the investigation. There is no perversity, irregularity in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer, which has been approved by the disciplinary authority.

The other contention of the appellant, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. State of West Bengal, , L.I.C. of India and Another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, and Anil Gilurker Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank and Another, is that the charge was vague and not specific. The said contention deserves to be rejected as the charge was specific and not capable of any doubt or vagueness. The delinquent employee was capable of understanding the charge and made reply accordingly. The delinquent employee has participated in the enquiry and at no point of time, expressed his intention that the charge was so vague as the appellant delinquent employee was not in a position to submit proper response or explanation. We have not noticed any flaw in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, warranting interference in this appeal.

It is a trite law that the scope of judicial review in case of challenge to disciplinary enquiry is very limited. The Court has to examine only the question as to whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority in accordance with law and also whether the procedure prescribed under law and rules of natural justice have been followed. If the evidence produced in the enquiry to prove that the charge reasonably supports the conclusion recorded by the Enquiring Authority, there is no scope for interference with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary Authority for imposing punishment. (See Y.P. Sarabhai Vs. Union Bank of India and Another, ; Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. K.G. Soni, and Registrar General, Patna High Court Vs. Pandey Gajendra Prasad and Others, . In view of the foregoings, the writ appeal is dismissed at admission stage itself.