P. Palanisamy vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—The petitioner challenges the order dated 27 February 2009 on the file of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Railways, Chennai, confirming the order of dismissal dated 4 June 2008, on the file of Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai.

Short facts :-

While functioning as Grade II Police Constable with the Railway Police, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, registered by Station House Officer, Chitlapakkam Police Station, in Cr.No.1137 of 2005. The petitioner was placed under suspension even before the registration of the said crime on account of his involvement in a criminal case registered by the police in Cr.No.146/2005 under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act"). The petitioner left the headquarters without permission and committed another crime, resulting in initiating disciplinary proceedings by the 2nd respondent. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report indicating that both the charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed a final order dismissing the petitioner from service. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Appellate Authority. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside by this Court by order dated 23 January 2009 in W.P. No.899 of 2009. The Appellate Authority was directed to pass a fresh order with reasons. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority passed an order dated 27 February 2009. The said order is the subject matter of this Writ Petition.

The Inspector General of Police, Railways, in his counter affidavit, contended that the petitioner was involved in a serious criminal case and the same resulted in initiating proceedings against him. The Disciplinary Authority conducted enquiry through an Enquiry Officer in accordance with the regulations, and imposed punishment. The issue was once again considered by the Appellate Authority on merits and the order of dismissal was confirmed.

Submissions :-

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority placed reliance on the statement made by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as such, the order is vitiated. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was subsequently acquitted by criminal Court in C.C. No.114/2005 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Similarly, he was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, in the case filed in C.C. No.580/2006, in respect of the case registered by the police in Cr.No.1137/ 2005. The learned counsel therefore wanted this Court to quash the impugned order, taking into account the subsequent acquittal by criminal courts.

I have also heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Discussion :-

The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable in Railway Police on 12 September 1986. While he was functioning as Grade I police constable at Erode Railway Police Station, a case in Cr.No.146 of 2005 was filed against him under the provisions of NDPS Act. The petitioner was shows as 2nd accused in the said case. The petitioner was suspended from service with effect from 1 May 2005, for his involvement in the case in Cr.No.146 of 2005. He was directed not to leave the headquarters during the period of suspension. The petitioner, without any regard to the specific condition enumerated in the order of suspension, left the headquarters and got involved in another case registered by Chitlapakkam Police Station in Cr.No.1137/2005. The petitioner was shown as 4th accused. The involvement of the petitioner in a subsequent case, that too, by travelling from Erode to Chennai, by violating the condition enumerated in the order of suspension, made the second respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

The Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and passed an order of punishment. The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside by this Court, solely on the ground that he has not given reasons in support of finding. The Appellate Authority considered the issue once again and passed the impugned order.

The petitioner now seeks to quash the impugned order primarily on the ground that he was acquitted by the criminal court.

The order dated 20 May 2011 in C.C. No.114/2005 on the file of the Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Coimbatore, shows that the petitioner was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. The learned trial Judge has very clearly stated that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no finding that the petitioner was innocent. Similarly, the petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, by giving him the benefit of doubt. Trial Courts have not given a finding that the petitioner was innocent and he has not committed any offence. It was not an honourable acquittal. Standard of proof in a disciplinary proceeding is entirely different from a criminal case. Before the criminal court, the prosecution has to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. However, that is not the standard to be adopted by Disciplinary Authority. Acquittal by the criminal court by taking a technical view of the matter would not amount to an honourable acquittal. There should be a finding to the effect that the accused has not committed any offence, as alleged.

The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Purushottam (2015 (1) Scale 1)ENDLAWFINDER , held that acquittal of an employee by a criminal court would not automatically and conclusively impact departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court indicated that acquittal of an employee in the connected criminal proceedings would be relevant only in case the criminal court concluded that the accused is innocent and not merely acquitting him on the ground that he has not been proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have considered the materials and arrived at a correct conclusion that the petitioner deserves maximum punishment.

Conclusion :-

The petitioner was a member of a disciplined force. He was expected to behave like a police officer. The petitioner who is expected to maintain law and order and safeguard the interest of public behaved like a criminal and involved in a case, attracting the provisions of NDPS Act. Though he was not expected to leave the headquarters, still, the petitioner left the station and committed another offence at Chennai. The petitioner appears to have no regard to the law of land. It is true that he was acquitted in both the cases. Such acquittal by giving benefit of doubt would not exonerate him from disciplinary proceedings. Persons like the petitioner are not fit to be retained in police force. I am therefore of the view that there are no grounds made out by the petitioner to quash the order of punishment, as upheld by the Appellate Authority.

In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No.2/2009 is closed.