AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Suguna, J.—This writ appeal is filed as against the judgment dated 20.2.2007 passed in W.P.No. 42962 of 2006.
The petitioner is the appellant in this writ appeal. The appellant was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 21.9.2006 by the first respondent. Challenging the same W.P.No. 42962/2006 was filed, but the same was dismissed by order dated 20.2.2007. As against the same, the above said writ appeal is filed.
According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant had joined the Police Force in the year 1978 as Grade II Police Constable and he had served for a period of 30 years with a clean record of service. On the date of the impugned order, the appellant was serving as a Head Constable and due for promotion as Sub-Inspector. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, a Civil Suit was filed in O.S.No. 2539/1999 against the appellant by his neighbour Mr. Ramasamy but the said suit was dismissed. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the suit was filed at the instigation of one Mr. Kumar who was earlier, the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Station where the appellant was working as Head Constable. According to the learned Counsel, the appellant has filed O.S.No. 7148/1999, as against the said Kumar and one Ravindran seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant''s property. Besides the appellant preferred a private complaint in C.C.No. 11790/1999 before the Xth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, against his neighbour Mr. Ramasamy for illegally demolishing the appellant''s compound wall. In the said criminal case, on 6.1.2006, the appellant''s tenants gave evidence against the said Ramasamy. According to the learned Counsel, basing on this, the appellant and his tenants were threatened by the henchmen of the said Ramasamy. Consequence of this, on 11.2.2006, the appellant preferred a police complaint to the then Inspector of Police, Mr. Rajagopal and sought for police protection and registered a complaint in CSR.No. 77/2006. After the transfer of Mr. Rajagopal to another police station, the third respondent took charge as Inspector of Police (Law and Order) of the said police Station where the appellant was working. Inspite of the complaint lodged, no action was taken as against Ramasamy and Ors. against whom complaint is lodged. On the other hand, colluding with them, the third respondent started humiliating the appellant in their presence. Basing on this, the appellant filed a private complaint before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, in Crime No. 340/2006 against the said Ramasamy and two others and sought for police protection. Subsequent to this, according to the learned Counsel, the third respondent threatened the appellant and his witness for giving the above said complaint. Consequence of this, on 7.4.2006, the appellant preferred a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, N.K.B. Nagar, against the third respondent, Ramasamy and two others. According to the learned Counsel, when the appellant was on medical leave from 14.9.2006 to 23.9.2006, in order to wreck vengeance on the appellant for having given evidence against the third respondent in the Criminal Court, he got hold of an unauthorised kerosene seller namely R. Kumar and procured a statement from him stating that the appellant had demanded mamool of Rs. 2000/-. According to the learned Counsel, by order dated 21.9.2006, the appellant was placed under suspension on the ground that grave charges are pending against him for having involved in criminal case registered in Kodungaiyur Police Station in Crime No. 1119/2006 under Sections 199, 200, 201, 213, 384 and 506(1) I.P.C., for not handed over the key and vehicle diary of police jeep on 14.9.2006.
According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the impugned order of suspension is issued with a malafide intention. Besides, according to the learned Counsel, by the impugned order, the appellant has been placed under suspension retrospectively i.e., the impugned order is dated 21.9.2006 but he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 14.9.2006. That apart, the impugned order has been issued at the instance of the third respondent since the appellant had given a complaint against him that he was colluding with one Ramasamy and two others against whom a criminal case is pending in C.C.No. 11790/99. Apart from this, as per the impugned order, the appellant is placed under suspension basing on his involvement in the criminal case. But according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the very same Kumar, the unauthorised kerosene seller, has given a statement that the appellant had not demanded any money and basing on this, the Hon''ble Court has also granted anticipatory bail on 26.10.2006. As such, the ground on which the impugned order of suspension is passed does not survive at all. That apart, according to the learned Counsel, the impugned order of suspension was not passed in public Interest but only to wreck vengeance against the appellant, the same has been issued and for this purpose, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment reported in S. Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, . Besides the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground, though, the criminal case in Crime No. 342/2004 ended in favour of the appellant, the criminal case in Cr.No. 1119/2006 is pending. But according to the learned Counsel, basing on this finding of the learned Single Judge, the impugned order of suspension cannot be upheld. According to the learned Counsel, even while granting anticipatory ball, this Hon''ble Court has made an observation that the Inspector of Police is not in cordial terms with the appellant and a case has been foisted against the appellant. As such, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, though a criminal case is pending as against the appellant that cannot form a base for passing the impugned order of suspension since the criminal case has been foisted on a false complaint. Basing on this, learned Counsel has prayed for the setting aside of the impugned order.
Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that on 14.7.2006 when the appellant was working at Kodungaiyur, he involved in a civil dispute and criminally trespassed into his neighbour''s land and prevented the owner of the land from entering into his land and in this regard, Ramasamy, the owner of the said land-lodged a complaint as against the appellant to Selvakumar, Inspector of Police, Law and Order, P6 Kodungaiyur Police Station. In this connection, a petition enquiry in CSR No. 77/2006 dated 12.2.2006 was conducted by the Inspector of Police and the Inspector of Police warned the petitioner from entering illegally into the said Ramasamy''s land and directed to settle the matter through the Civil Court. Basing on this, the appellant filed a complaint as against Mr. Selvakumar, the Inspector of Police stating that he was colluding with the said Ramasamy. Apart from this, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the third respondent is not in any way connected with the complaint preferred by one Mr. Kumar on 14.9.2006. In fact, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the complaint was lodged on 14.9.2006 whereas the said Selva Kumar was transferred from Kodungaiyur Police Station on 13.6.2006 itself. As such, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the allegation that at the instance of the third respondent, the complaint was lodged by the said Kumar and the suspension order was issued cannot stand. Actually, a complaint from the kerosene vendor Kumar was received by the Inspector of Police by name Tr. Rajendran. Besides, as per the averment in the counter, after the complaint was lodged by the said Kumar, the appellant with the local person went and threatened the said Kumar for giving such a complaint and forced him to give a letter in writing stating that the matter is a false one. That apart, since the appellant was absconding for getting anticipatory bail, no other option for the respondent department except to paste the suspension order on the door of his residence. As such, the question of passing the suspension order subsequent to the anticipatory ball is an incorrect statement since the anticipatory bail was given only on 26.9.2006 whereas the impugned order of suspension is passed on 21.9.2006 itself. Apart from this, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader for conducting the departmental enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Royapuram, was nominated as an Enquiry Officer to conduct Oral Enquiry in P.R.No. 15/PRN(2)/2006 for the allegation levelled against the appellant. Since the appellant had not co-operated with the enquiry, there is no progress in the oral enquiry also. Basing on this, learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
We have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents.
Admittedly, by the Impugned order dated 21.9.2006, the appellant is placed under suspension w.e.f. 14.9.2006 i.e., with retrospective effect. No reason was given for placing the appellant under suspension with retrospective effect. As far as passing of the impugned order of suspension with retrospective effect is concerned, it cannot be allowed to stand so far as it relates to giving effect from 14.9.2006. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that at the instance of the third respondent alone, the impugned order of suspension was issued is concerned, the third respondent was transferred from Kodungaiyur Police Station, by proceedings dated 13.6.2006, whereas the suspension order was passed after a lapse of three months on 21.9.2006.
The other contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that as far as the complaint lodged by kerosene Kumar is concerned, as per the statement of Mr. Kumar himself, the appellant had not demanded any mamool at all, but in the counter affidavit, a specific stand is taken by the respondent department that the third respondent is not in any way connected with the complaint lodged by the said kerosene Kumar for the reason that the third respondent was transferred from the Kodungaiyur Police Station on 13.6.2006 whereas the complaint was lodged by the said Kumar on 14.9.2006. Besides, the appellant with one local person named Bakthan went and threatened the said Kumar for giving such a complaint and forced him to give a letter stating that the complaint lodged by him was false. As such, the ground of the learned Counsel for the appellant that at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the complaint was lodged, cannot stand at all.
The other contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, since the appellant gave evidence as against the 3rd respondent, the impugned order of suspension is passed is concerned, as referred above, three months after his transfer alone, this impugned order of suspension is passed. That apart, it is not the case of the appellant that no such criminal case is pending as against him. It is true that the criminal case registered in Crime No. 342/2004 has ended in favour of the appellant. But as far as the criminal case in Crime No. 1119/2006 is concerned, there is a specific averment in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent department that the said case is pending and posted to 24.7.2007 for appearance of the accused, namely, the appellant. Hence, the finding of the learned Single Judge that though the appellant is acquitted in Crime No. 342/2004, since, the criminal case lodged in Crime No. 1119/2006 is pending and since, the pendency of the criminal case is a ground on which the impugned order of suspension is passed, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Judge is proper. As far as malafide is concerned, from the facts stated above, we are not able to accept this contention. Consequently, the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant also will not apply to the facts of the case.
In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of placing the appellant under suspension with retrospective effect from 14.9.2006. In all other aspects, the impugned order is upheld. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.