AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mrs. AL. Gandhimathi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs. V. Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and have perused the records.
The writ petition is filed by a Sub-Inspector of Police, who is working at D-2, Thideer Nagar Police Station. He is challenging the order of
compulsory retirement made by the first respondent, Commissioner of Police, dated 04.04.2005. The petitioner had not filed any appeal or
revision in terms of the service rules and have straight away filed the writ petition. The petitioner was suspended pending enquiry into allegations of
misconduct. The petitioner has challenged the said suspension by way of writ proceedings in W.P. No. 1215 of 2004. This Court granted an
interim stay by an order dated 15.09.2004. In the light of the said stay order, the petitioner was restored to service by proceedings dated
05.10.2004 and the petitioner continued in service till he was compulsorily retired by the impugned order. Followed by the order of suspension, a
charge memo under Rule 3(b), was given to the petitioner under Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. An enquiry
was conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner by a letter, dated 08.11.2004, sought for some documents in support of some charges. By a
letter, dated 19.11.2004, he was permitted to peruse the documents. After recording the deposition of the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer by his
report, dated 14.02.2005 found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Before agreeing with the findings, the respondent gave a copy of the report and
asked for further explanation from the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not submit any explanation. Therefore, the first respondent passed the
impugned order, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed and was admitted
on 13.04.2005. But this Court declined to grant any interim order.
The charge against the petitioner was that he was a prosecution witness in S.C. No. 398 of 2003 tried by Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Madurai. In that case some Police Officers were charged with the offence of kidnapping, murder and causing disappearance of evidence. While
deposing on 19.08.2004, before the Sessions Court, the petitioner being P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and he simply turned
hostile. This was contrary to the statement given to him u/s 161 Cr.P.C. It is alleged that the petitioner deposed only as an official witness and this
can be proved from the fact that he has not taken any view and the relevant GD entry in the station will also prove the same. His claim that he was
a private witness cannot be accepted.
It is the stand of the petitioner that while giving evidence on oath one has to give evidence by speaking the truth and the petitioner has preciously
done the same. The respondent cannot find fault at the petitioner for having spoken the truth. It was also stated that the Inspector of Police, who
was the Investigating Officer in the criminal case did not actually record his 161 statement. Therefore, he denied in the statement that he gave the
location of the hiding place of Vedikundu Baskar to accuse Ramasamy. In the domestic enquiry when the Assistant Commissioner of Police, gave
deposition, he did not make any cross-examination on the merits of the case. In the same way, the Deputy Commissioner of Police gave evidence.
He never had any effective prosecution witness. When Inspector Sakthivel, Investigating Officer, was cross-examined the question Nos. 5,6,7 & 8
in the relevant answer was as follows:
Question No. 5:
Is it correct that instead of examining me and recording my statement you yourself record the statement with the help of a constable?
Answer:
I deny your suggestion. I wrote as per your dictation and only after reading the said statement and agreeing with the same and after you signing the
statement the statement was filed.
Question No. 6:
Who had written the statement after you investigated and recorded my statement?
Answer:
It was recorded in my presence with a help of a constable who worked under me.
Question No. 7:
After recording the statement where was the true copy set?
Answer:
It has been kept safely in the Madurai CBCID Office.
Question No. 8:
Is it correct to state when a witness statement is recorded u/s 162 Cr.P.C. the signature should not be obtained in the said statement.
Answer:
Only in the statement forwarded to the Court, the signature should not be obtained.
A copy of the statement recorded from the petitioner signed by the petitioner on 08.04.2001 was marked before the domestic enquiry. In that
the petitioner had signed at the end of the statement. In view of the same, the entire edifice built by the petitioner falls to the ground. It is not as if
the petitioner is charge sheeted for giving true evidence before a criminal Court but having made the Investigating Officer to record a statement with
his own version of the incident and going back on the said statement certainly embraces the department and the credibility of the department is at
stake.
First the petitioner contended the statement was recorded in his absence and he did not know the contents of the same. Later in the enquiry his
line of cross-examination was that it was wrong to obtain the signature of the witness in the statement recorded u/s 162 Cr.P.C. As can be seen
from the parts of the cross-examination recorded above that the petitioner was taken by a surprise by his signature found in the statement. That is
why he has now taken a new stand before this Court that he cannot be punished for speaking the truth before the criminal court and there is no
jurisdiction to take any disciplinary action.
In this context, Mrs. V. Chellammal, learned Special Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court to the Division Bench Judgment of
this Court reported in 1990 L.W. (Cri) 132 (Jothi Begaum v. State). The relevant passage found in para 13 is as follows:
Before parting with this case, we have to make a few observations. Firstly, as per the prosecution P.W.11, Dr. Arumugam, who was the
''Assistant Surgeon in Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Madras-10, at the time of his examination before the Court on 31.07.1984 was cited as
a witness to speak to the fact that he has seen the deceased Anandhi was brought by A-1 and A-3 and pronounced her death. That official witness
has turned hostile. He deposed unequivocally that he had not given any statement before police and that he had not seen A-1 and A-3 at any point
of time on 29.08.1983 from 1.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. the duration of his shift. Such stand by the official witness is perplexing. Either P.W.11 would
utter falsehood or the investigating officer, Thiru A. Viswanathan, Inspector of Police who deposed that he recorded the statement of P.W.11 has
no regard to truth. The fact of an official witness turning fully hostile is something which in the normal course does not happen and should not
happen. Therefore, enquiry has to be initiated to find out whose version is true and suitable action has to be taken against the erring officer. Since
we are dealing with an appeal against acquittal we cannot ourselves probe further into this matter. It is to the Government authorities to take action.
In the light of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and will stand dismissed and no orders as to cost.