P. Ramachandran vs Deputy Commissioner of Police and Commissioner of Police

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner, who was working as an Head Constable (H.C.2280) attached to the Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai

filed O.A. No. 9083 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the order dated 18.05.2000 passed by the first

Respondent and confirmed by the order of the second Respondent dated 15.07.2000, wherein and by which the Petitioner was imposed with the

penalty of compulsory retirement from service.

The Original Application was admitted on 11.12.2000. Pending the Original Application, no interim order was granted though the Petitioner

prayed for such a relief.

On notice from the Tribunal, the first Respondent had filed a reply affidavit dated 25.01.2001.

In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 45963 of 2006.

The Petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 09.01.1975. Subsequently, he got further promotions and finally became an

Head Constable on 09.01.1998. He also completed his probation in the higher post on 08.01.2000. Though he was attached to the Thallakulam

Crime Police Station, he was directed to report at Thilagarthidal Police Station on 19.01.2000 for prisoner escort duty as per the procedure

adopted by the Madurai City Police. The Petitioner along with another Head Constable Antony Jeyaraj (HC 2181) were directed to escort the

prisoner Andisamy s/o Pamban, who involved in Crime No. 200/97 u/s 302 r/w 341 IPC in Keelavalur Police Station. The said prisoner was

taken by the Petitioner and his colleague in a police vehicle to the Madurai Court Complex in order to produce the prisoner before the Additional

District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate.

While they were waiting in the Court verandah, the Petitioner''s colleague left the Court complex on the alleged reason that he wanted to have

tea. The Petitioner, though was left alone with the prisoner instead of protecting the prisoner went inside the Court hall leaving the prisoner with the

handcuff. It was the claim of the Petitioner that when he went inside the Court hall to hand over the records to the Magistrate Clerk, during that

time, the prisoner escaped from the Court complex. In this connection, a case was also registered in the Anna Nagar Police Station in Crime No.

183/2000 u/s 224 IPC. The escaped prisoner could not be secured and he is still at large.

The Petitioner was dealt with departmentally in P.R.52/2000 and a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D & A) Rules was framed. The

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thilagarthidal Crime was appointed as the Enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled

against the Petitioner were proved. On the basis of the proved charges, the first Respondent by the impugned order dated 18.05.2000

compulsorily retired the Petitioner from service. His appeal to the second Respondent was not fruitful and the same was also rejected on

15.07.2000.

Mr. A. Amalraj, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the enquiry held against the Petitioner was not fair and proper. There was no

legal evidence to hold him guilty of the charges. Without prejudice to the same, he also submitted that the charge of compulsorily retirement was

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged against him.

In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and

Others, . This is for the purpose of contending that there must be ""Sufficiency of evidence"", in an enquiry and the term means an evidence which

linked the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. The same was lacking in the present case.

Thereafter, the learned Counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,

for contending that the Enquiry Officer while analysing the documents must arrive at the conclusion that there had been preponderance of

probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record and he cannot take into account any irrelevant fact or refuse to consider the

relevant facts. In the present case, since the Petitioner was called by the Magistrate Clerk, he had to go inside and had safeguarded his presence

by handcuffing the prisoner. These facts were not considered by the Enquiry Officer.

He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the supreme Court reported in Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi and

Others, for contending that only in cases of grave misconduct and continued misconduct indicating incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police

service, a punishment can be imposed and on one isolated incident like this, the Petitioner cannot be punished.

He further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.A. Kittu And Others, for contending that if there was no

evidence to show that the action of the Petitioner was directly relatable to any material gains, the finding of guilt was illegal.

The learned Counsel in support of his contention further referred to a judgment of this Court in P. Balamani and A. Saraswathi Vs. The District

Magistrate and District Collector and The Chief Engineer, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise), for

contending that the reasoning in an enquiry is like heart beat of every conclusion and without reasons, conclusion will become lifeless.

The learned Counsel further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, for contending the

importance of recording reasons. An authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record reasons for his decision, irrespective of whether the

decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. Though the reason may not be elaborate, it should be clear and explicit and that

requirement is embodiment of principles of natural justice.

He further referred to the judgment of this Court V.P. Chellappa v. Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors. reported

in (2010) 1 MLJ 714 for contending that the Appellate Authority should have passed a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised in the

appeal and the mind of the Appellate Authority is not reflected in the order.

In the light of these legal submissions, he wanted the impugned order to be set aside.

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is the Enquiry Officer, clearly recorded that the Petitioner did not follow the necessary guidelines

while escorting the prisoner and it is a serious lapse. Taking exception to this finding, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended as to what

were the guidelines that has to be followed was not indicated by the Enquiry Officer and it is a perverse finding.

In the present case, the Petitioner''s contention was that he was not aware that the prisoner was involved in heinous crime. If only the jail

authorities have informed him, he would have taken greater care. This allegation made by the Petitioner cannot be believed because it is an

admitted fact that the Petitioner had handcuffed the said prisoner. It must be noted that no such handcuffing is permissible unless permission was

obtained from the Court for doing so. Even such permission can be granted by the court only when an accused is a desperado or a habitual

offender and in the opinion of the Court he was likely to evade the course of law. Secondly, the Petitioner had produced the documents relating to

the prisoner to the Court which would have indicated that the accused was involved in murder case. In the matter of a prisoner escaping from the

custody, the responsibility to bring him back and entrusting him to the prison is solely vest with the escort. It is needless to state that if a prisoner is

detained, (whether before or after conviction) only on a warrant issued by the Court. Therefore, his presence in the prison or in the Courthouse, it

is the responsibility of the escort police to escort the prisoner. The Petitioner having known that his colleague who is junior to him had gone out for

tea should have stayed till his colleague had come back and he could not have left the prisoner all alone. Having allowed the prisoner to escape

who was yet to be secured even till date, this Court do not think that there was any illegality in the findings in the enquiry. In the enquiry, 10

witnesses were examined and documents were also produced. It is only on the basis of these materials, he was found guilty of negligence.

Though the Petitioner attempted to state that there might be negligence, but not deliberate negligence, he is only coupling with words. Whether

a particular negligence was deliberate or not will have to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. Though under the relevant rule, there are

three major punishments viz., removal, compulsory retirement or dismissal, the least oppressive is the penalty of compulsory retirement. Having

regard to the Petitioner''s service, he was imposed only with that penalty which would enure to him the benefit of getting all terminal benefits and

pension for the services rendered by him. The Petitioner''s appeal was rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority. Though it is stated that the

Appellate Authority did not give any separate reasons, the appellate authority set out the nature of charge, the order passed by the competent

authority and also the appropriateness of the penalty imposed on him.

In the present case, there is no grievance that the enquiry conducted against the Petitioner was not done in accordance with the Rules. The

Sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence depends upon the nature of allegations made against the charged Government servant. The two

contentions that there was non-application of mind and findings are not supported by legal evidence cannot be accepted as the escape of the

prisoner was not in dispute. The only issue was whether the Petitioner was negligent in allowing to escape the prisoner. If there was a complicity of

the Petitioner in such an escape, then the punishment would have been different.

The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Praveen Bhatia Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, has held that judicial review over interference

with the penalty is extremely limited and the Court can interfere only when relevant facts were not taken into account. In the present case, the

authorities below have given him the least oppressive punishment among the major penalty.

Further, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Chairman and MD V.S.P. and Others Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, has held that

a well reasoned order of the disciplinary authority cannot be interfered with on the basis of sympathy or sentiment. Once procedural formalities are

complied with by the authorities, the Courts should ordinarily not to disturb with the penalty. It is necessary to refer the following passages found in

paragraphs 20 and 21, which are as follows:

The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known

factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. (See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal; State of Bihar v.

Amrendra Kumar Mishra; SBI v. Mahatma Mishra; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi; State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Uttar Haryana

Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Dev.)

Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of

punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the

decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands 12

proved. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India.)

In the light of the above, the case of the Petitioner fails. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.