AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned order of removal of Petitioner from service, on the ground of misconduct.
The Petitioner, who was a Head Constable in Police, was issued a Charge Memorandum under Rule 3(b) of T.N.P.S.S. (D & A) Rules 1955, alleging imputations of misconduct / misbehaviour.
The charges framed against the Petitioner are as under:
CHARGE I: Tr. Lakshmanan HC 898 is serving at Kadalkudi Police Station from 16.12.2004. One Lakshmipathi an Ex-Serviceman of Seenivasa Nagar, Kovilpatti is presently doing finance business at Virudhunagar. His two wheeler Hero Honda Splender bearing No. TN 69 Y 9365 was stolen from his house by unknown person during March 2004 on his complaint, a case was registered in Kovilpatti West P.S. Cr. No. 142/2004 u/s 379 I.P.C. and the investigation was taken by Tr. Muthuraman, Sub Inspector, Kovilpatti West P.S. After six months Lakshmipathi had approached his friend Seenlvasaga Perumal to get R.C. final notice from the police station as undetected and thereby to get insured sum from the insurance company. Seenivasaga Perumal requested you for R.C. certificate, you asked him to submit a petition in this connection to you and you would do the needful After 15 days, you gave them RC notice bearing S. No. 715801 for which you had demanded Rs. 1,000/- from Seenivasaga Perumal. Accordingly Seenivasaga Perumal had given you a cash Rs. 1000/- . This shows your highly reprehensible conduct.
CHARGE II: The R.C. notice bearing No. 715801 was prepared and duly signed by you as if the Inspector of Police, West Police Station with his official seal without the knowledge of the Inspector. When Seenivasaga Perumal was called by local police for enquiry, he came to know that the RC Notice handed over by you was a false and forged one. You supplied the forged document which was later used to cheat the Insurance Company. Thus you have exhibited your highly reprehensible conduct
In support of the Charge Memo, nine witnesses were examined. The Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the statements of the witnesses examined, held the Petitioner guilty of both the charges.
The findings of the Enquiry Officer reads as under:
The charge against the delinquent is in two counts (1) getting Rs. 1,000/- from Srinivasagaperumal for giving RC Notice in Kovilpatti West P.S. Cr. No. 142/04 between September & October 2004. (2) Issuing a bogus RC Notice bearing No. 715801 to Lakshmipathi between September and October 2004 by using the seal of the Inspector of Police West unauthorisedly and putting his signature. In the explanation, the delinquent has denied the charges and he has been implicated falsely due to conspiracy. He has pointed out the denial statement of P.W.3 and has argued that the statements were obtained on 15 and 19.11.2004 under duress. He has also pointed out non examination of the important witness Tr. Gopal, Inspector and delay caused by SI / Kovilpatti West in sending his special report by three days. The non specifying the date, place and time of getting money is also put forth by him. It is yet his plea that the completion of OE quickly when the case is UI, is incorrect.
The argument put forth by the delinquent in his explanation cannot be accepted. The charges have been framed against the delinquent after a full fledged preliminary enquiry both by Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East and Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.E.W., Thoothukudi. As there were sufficient materials prima facie, a charge was issued to him. The delinquent has pointed out the statement of P.W.3 in the OE that P.W.3 gave a petition at Kovilpatti PS and that some body gave the RC notice to Ganesan, servant of P.W.1 and that P.W.3 denied payment of any money. But, P.W.1 Srinivasagaperumal has given a statement to Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East PS on 15.11.2004 that he paid Rs. 1,000/- to the delinquent and got the RC Notice (Ex.P.10). P.W.1 -Srinivasagaperumal has given again a detailed statement to Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.E.W. Thoothukudi on 11.01.2005 (Ex.P.13) that after giving his statement to Inspector, Kovilpatti East on 15.11.2004 about payment of Rs. 1,000/- to the delinquent. The HC 898 (delinquent) again obtained his signature in two typed papers under duress and that he did not send any petition of denial of payment of money to any officer. He also confirmed in this statement (Ex.P.13) that what he said in his statement dated 15.11.2004 to Inspector, Kovilpatti East is true and correct (Ex.P.10). Hence, it is clear that P.W.1 -Srinivasagaperumal has confirmed the payment of Rs. 1000/- to the delinquent in both of this statements dated 15.11.2004 and 11.01.2005 (Ex.P.10 & 13) and has also accepted that he signed the typed statement of denial as directed by the delinquent during Deepavali period. Hence the contention of the delinquent that (Srinivasagaperumal) denied payment of Rs. 1000/- to him cannot be accepted. There can be no motive for P.W.8 or P.W.9 to record any statements implicating the delinquent unless the allegations are true. Hence the present statement made over by P.W.1 in the OE cannot be taken into evidence. The statements made over by P.W.1 on 15.11.2004 and 11.01.2005 to the different officiers (Ex.P.10 & 13) are to be given due credence.
The non examination of Inspector Tr. Gopal was due to the fact that he was not able to attend the OE inspite of repeated messages. The delinquent himself has admitted in para 4 of his explanation that Inspector Tr. Gopal perused the RC Notice on 09.11.2004 and informed the SI that the signature in the RC notice is not of his. This is supported by the report of Inspector, Kovilpatti East PS dated 20.11.2004 (Ex.P.9) in which he has stated that he examined Inspector Tr. Gopal also on 18.11.2004 and that Inspector denied the signature in the RC Notice. Hence it is clear that the RC notice is a bogus one and it is also admitted so by Inspector Tr. Gopal. Hence the non examination of Tr. Gopal is not in any way detrimental to the prosecution. The explanation in para 4 of the delinquent itself proves that it was not signed by Inspector Tr. Gopal.
The averment that SI did not make any report on 09.11.2004 and delayed it for 3 days will not in any way affect the prosecution theory. The delay was not wantonly and may be due to verification of connected records. The non mention of specific date & time or place is due to the fact that P.W.1 -Srinivasagaperumal did not mention any place specific date & time. But he has conformed that he paid the amount of Rs. 1000/- to delinquent and got the RC Notice. This is no way affect the charge. The case is UI. The code rules says that both criminal action and departmental action can be taken simultaneously. Hence the departmental proceedings has proceeded with continuously. The P.W.1 has given a statement to Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.E.W. (P.W.9) that his petition to Superintendent of Police was typed and brought by the delinquent in which he was asked to sign. Hence his petition of 17.11.2004 has no face value as he denied it later.
Count No. 1: the evidence of P.W.3 -Lakshmipathi is clear that he paid Rs. 1000/- to P.W.1 Srinivasagaperumal for police expenses for getting the RC Notice. The evidence of SI Muthuraman, Inspector Tr. Rajagopal and DSP Tr. Chockalingam clearly establish that Rs. 1000/- was paid to the delinquent by P.W.1 for getting bogus RC notice by course the denial of P.W.1 will not affect the case in any way as he conformed the payment of Rs. 1000/- in his statement dated 15.11.1994 & 11.01.2005 (Ex.P.10 & 13). Hence, count No. 1 is held proved.
Count No. 2: Inspector Tr. Gopal has denied the signature in the RC notice and this is admitted by the delinquent in his explanation (para -4) Circle Writer PC and Station writer have also stated that RC notice was not supplied to West PS. Hence it is clear that the delinquent issued the bogus RC notice getting it from some where affixed the stamp of the Inspector and issued under this forged signature of the Inspector. Hence, Count No. 2 is also proved. I hold both the counts of the charges proved.
Certified that a properly recorded oral enquiry was conducted by me as laid down under P.S.O.80 Vol.I
The competent Authority, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and after giving show cause notice, awarded punishment of removal from service. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal. The appeal was also rejected.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order, on the ground, that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse, and based on no evidence.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that P.W.1 did not support the prosecution version, as he did not admit, having given any amount, as bribe to the Petitioner. That Thiru. Lakshmipathy also categorically stated, that he did not know the Petitioner and had not handed over any money to the Petitioner. Therefore, contended, that in spite of the statements of the two material witnesses, referred to above, the Enquiry Officer wrongly held Charge No. I is proved. The finding cannot be sustained, being perverse.
It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that under Charge No. 2 also, there is no positive evidence, to connect the Petitioner with the charge, as the Report of Forensic Laboratory is awaited, in the criminal case, and the only evidence, so collected was, that the signature in R.C. Notice were forged, but this itself is not sufficient, to connect the Petitioner with the charge.
It is further contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the Enquiry was held in violation of principles of natural justice, as it is recorded, that P.W.1 was cross-examined by the Enquiry Officer, which was not permissible in law, thus, the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended, that Mr. Ganesan, was also not examined, to prove the notice, therefore, adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution, and that the Petitioner should be acquitted of the charges against him.
On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
In the Departmental proceedings, findings can be recorded on probabilities. In this case, it is proved on record, that R.C notice was forged. No evidence was led, in defence, to show, as to why the Petitioner was being implicated in this case, in absence of any allegation of mala fide, the inference drawn by the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse or not capable of being arrived at on appreciation of evidence. The witnesses were won over by the Petitioner, still evidence came on record that a sum of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) was actually paid, for getting the R.C. Notice.
The Petitioner cannot take any benefit of the statement of the witnesses, as they were won over by the Petitioner, though earlier had made statement before the Inspector during the enquiry. It is not disputed, that R.C. Notice is a forged document, and mere non-examination of the Inspector therefore, cannot lead to a conclusion, that the charges against the Petitioner was not proved.
The mere asking of questions, to an hostile witnesses by Enquiry Officer cannot amount, to violation of principles of natural justice, as Enquiry Officer did cross-examined the witnesses in toto, but only questioned a hostile witness, to find out the truth. If in order to find out the truth, the Enquiry officer asked certain questions, it can not lead to a conclusion that there is violation of 10 principles of natural justice, in holding enquiry.
The charges against the Petitioner are serious that of Corruption and forgery, and the findings of Enquiry Officer are based on evidence on record, which neither be said to be perverse or not capable of being arrived at. The punishment awarded cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate, to the charges proved, to call for any interference by this Court.
Finding no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.
No costs.