AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner filed O.A. No. 6607 of 1997, challenging an order of punishment given to him, by which he was reduced in
rank for a period of one year and also treating the period of suspension as leave subject to his eligibility.
The petitioner was chargesheeted under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, by a charge memorandum, dated
14.8.87. The charge against the petitioner was that he demanded illegal gratification from one Arumugam, S/o.Dharma Gounder of Sirumer Village
on 13.7.87, while he was on medical leave in the village. The second charge was his reprehensible conduct of bringing the said Arumugam to Arni
Taluk Police Station on 13.7.87 and detaining him unlawfully. An enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai.
Both the charges were found proved by the Enquiry Officer.
It was thereafter, the fourth respondent agreeing with the charge memo, found the petitioner guilty and imposed a punishment of reduction of the
petitioner from the post of Head Constable to that of Grade I Police Constable for one year. The suspension was revoked and the period of
suspension was treated as an extraordinary leave. Subsequently, after giving show cause notice, the period of suspension was regulated. The
petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent, the appellate authority. The second respondent found that charge No. 2 alone was proved and
for charge No. 1, there was no evidence. But even for the proved second charge, the gravity of misconduct was so severe and hence he found that
the punishment was adequate.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review to the third respondent. The third respondent, agreeing with the appellate authority, held that there was
no procedural irregularity in the enquiry and the punishment awarded was not excessive. The petitioner further submitted a memorial to the State
Government, which was also rejected by the Government in G.O.(3D)No.2, Home Department, dated 7.11.1990. Even though a punishment was
imposed by the order, dated 25.11.1987 and the last memorial was rejected in November, 1990, the petitioner did not move the Tribunal and
instead, chose to move the Tribunal after a period of 4 years. In doing so, there was a delay of 736 days in filing an application. The Tribunal,
without assigning any reason, allowed the miscellaneous petition No. 2984 of 2000 and numbered the O.A. This was despite the protest from the
respondents that there was no justification in condoning the delay.
In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 30529 of 2006.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the punishing authority found both the charges proved, the appellate authority held
only one charge proved. Therefore, the reviewing authority and the Government, while considering the petitioner''s request, did not bear in mind
the exoneration of the first charge, but simply held that both the charges were proved. This will vitiate the orders passed by the first and third
respondents.
In this context, the learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divl. Forest Officer, Kothagudem and Others Vs.
Madhusudhan Rao, . It is stated in the said judgment that the appellate and revisional authority are required to give reasons, so that the charged
employee is entitled to know the mind of the authorities. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in S. Subbiah Pandian v. The Superintendent
of Police, Tirunelveli reported in 2009 (1) C.L.T. 45 to drive home the point that in the absence of any legal evidence, the court cannot hold the
petitioner guilty of charges.
The learned Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, .
This was for the purpose of showing that while relevant evidence must be taken into account, irrelevant evidence should be excluded and that
proportionality of punishment can be gone into by the court.
With reference to the first contention, though the reviewing authority in the narration of the facts had stated that two charges were proved, but in
the operative portion, he had clearly stated that the punishment awarded was not excessive and it is just. The State Government had also stated
that there was no necessity to interfere with the action taken by the appellate authority. It cannot be said in the present case that there was no
enquiry against the petitioner with reference to bringing the party from the village, while he was on leave. Though the witnesses have gone back on
their statements, yet the circumstantial evidence shows that the incident had taken place as alleged by the prosecution. Attributing of motive against
an another officer has not been proved.
The Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer''s case, cited supra, had stated as follows:
It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order
passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or
revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons
should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.
In the light of the above, it cannot be said that the authorities'' orders, especially the reviewing authority''s order is bereft of reasons. Inasmuch
as there is legal evidence let in and considering the gravity of charges, it cannot be said that it is either disproportionate or unjust. Even at the time
of filing of the O.A., the petitioner was 42 years old and will be reaching the age of superannuation.
In the light of the above, there is no case made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.