M.P. Mahalingam vs The Additional Director General, of Police, Economic Offence Wing, The Inspector General of Police, Economic Offence Wing and The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard Mr. D. Peter Francis, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Neelakantan, learned Government

Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 16.2.2004 where under the Original Application No. 3701 of 2003 filed by the present

petitioner before the State Administrative Tribunal has been dismissed. Such original application was filed for quashing an order of punishment of

compulsory retirement from service imposed after holding a departmental enquiry against the present petitioner. The substance of the allegation in

the departmental proceeding was to the effect that even though a complaint was filed by a victim girl aged 15 years, no FIR was registered for a

long period and only subsequently when a further complaint was filed by the same victim stating that she was being threatened by the alleged culprit

and on the intervention of the superior officer, the complaint was registered by the present petitioner, who at that time was the Inspector of Police

incharge of Othakkadai Police Station.

In the departmental proceeding, the plea of the present petitioner was to the effect that the complaint was given to the Sub-Inspector of Police

by the victim girl, and such complaint was never brought to the notice of the present petitioner and as soon as it was brought to his notice on

17.05.2001, the complaint was registered as P.R. No. 117/01 wherein by combining both the allegations namely, commission of offence u/s 376

IPC and a subsequent threat, a FIR was registered for offences under Sections 376 and 506(part ii) IPC. In the departmental enquiry, two

witnesses were examined namely, Mr. Ganesaperumal, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Mr. Vijaykumar, who was the subsequent Inspector

of Othakadai Police Station. The Enquiry Officer concluded that there was dereliction of duty, inasmuch as prompt steps were not taken by the

present petitioner to register the FIR. Certain other documents including the recommendation of the Assistant Director of Prosecution that

appropriate action should be taken against the officers concerned was also marked as Ex.P-4. On the basis of the enquiry report, after giving

further opportunity as required, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The appeal filed having been

dismissed, the petitioner filed the original application which also came to be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in fact there is no evidence on record to indicate that the complaint which was filed before

the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police was in fact brought to the notice of the present petitioner at any date prior to the actual date of registration

of such FIR. The Tribunal while considering a similar contention had referred to the fact that in the departmental enquiry, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, and the succeeding Inspector, who were examined as P.Ws 1 and 2, had stated

that on the complaint itself there was an endorsement made by the Sub-Inspector that the matter had been placed before the concerned Inspector.

Apart from this contemporaneous material, the fact remains that the present petitioner was the officer incharge of the police station and it can never

be accepted that for a period of about one month he had no occasion to visit the police station and to go through the documents, which were

available in the police station. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has succinctly observed: -

But the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted the initial enquiry was examined as P.W.1. The Inspector who succeeded the applicant

was examined as P.W.2. Both of them have spoken to the fact that in P.R. No. 117/01 the Sub-Inspector has not only acknowledged the receipt

of the complaint given by said Sindhu but also made an endorsement that it is placed before the Inspector of Police, Othakkadai for necessary

action. The applicant who was the Inspector on 16.4.2001 and even during subsequent days, has failed to take action on this and he has failed to

register a case. The explanation given by the applicant that this was not brought to the notice all these days can never be accepted. A perusal of the

General Diary and a perusal of the Index Register must have alerted the applicant that a complaint of rape has been made and that too by an young

girl of 15 years old.

In view of the above conclusion, the contention now pressed into service by the petitioner cannot be accepted, particularly keeping in view the fact

that in the departmental proceeding the allegation is not required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt unlike in a criminal case. Moreover, the

finding of the disciplinary authority has already received the judicial approval at the hands of the Tribunal, and the High Court while dealing in such

matters is not expected to sit as second court of appeal to go through the entire materials afresh. In such view of the matter, the main contention

raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even assuming that there was dereliction of duty, keeping in view the fact that the election

was around the corner at the relevant time and the petitioner had other duties to be discharged, the punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly

disproportionate. We do not think that this submission can never be countenanced keeping in view the fact that there was unjustified delay in

registering the case where serious allegations have been made by a minor victim.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that inspite of an interim direction to the effect that the pendency of the writ petition will not

stand in the way of paying the pensionary benefits, no action has been taken by the department. Whatever might have been the justification, since

we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition, the authorities concerned will look into the matter and do the needful in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous

petition is also dismissed.