AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Original Application in O.A. No. 3599 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as the ""Tribunal"") is the present writ petition.
Heard the submissions made by Mr. K.S anjay, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents.
The petitioner was a Grade I Police Constable. He was working in B2 Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram, in the year 2001. While so,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram, issued a charge memo dated 10.08.2001 under Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate
Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. It is alleged in the charge memo that while he was going around at Madam Street in Kanchipuram,
along with Thiru. M. Natarajan, Head Constable, one ex-accused Thiru. Varadhan was called by name and on being called, Thiru. Varadhan
started running and the petitioner and Thiru. M. Natarajan, ran behind him and at that time the said Varadhan took a broken tube light from dustbin
and inflicted himself several injuries on his stomach. It is alleged that the injuries were caused to Mr. Varadhan because of the negligence on the
part of the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanchipuram. In the enquiry, Mr. Natarajan deposed
that when Thiru. Varadhan caused self inflicting injuries, Thiru. Natarajan was not present at the scene of occurrence. Based upon the said
statement, the enquiry officer held that the charges were not proved. While so, the third respondent, issued the impugned order dated 18.01.2002,
imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect.
The petitioner filed an appeal dated 17.09.2002 to the second respondent. The appellate authority passed an order dated 30.11.2002,
modifying the punishment as ""postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect"".
Further, the petitioner filed revision petition dated 16.12.2002 against the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2002 of the second respondent before
the first respondent and the first respondent rejected the revision petition by an order dated 08.05.2003.
The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A. No. 3 599 of 2003 (W.P. No. 14428 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid orders dated
18.01.2002, 30.11.2002 and 08.05.2003 respectively, of the respondents.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the enquiry officer held that the charges were not established, the third respondent was
not justified in straight away passing the impugned order without recording a finding, differing from the findings of the enquiry officer and seeking
the views of the petitioner thereon. Such a procedure was not followed by the third respondent and hence the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order dated 18.01.2002 was passed in violation of Principles of natural justice.
In support of the said submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
(V. Arulkumar v. Housing And Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (HUDCO)) reported in 2009(3) CTC 388.
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents made his submissions based on the instructions and seeks to sustain the
impugned orders.
Admittedly the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charges. Thereafter, no question of imposing penalty would arise, unless the
third respondent differed from such a finding of the Enquiry Officer and came to the conclusion that the charges were established. On coming to
such different views, the third respondent is enjoined to furnish such a differed view to the petitioner and seeks his views thereon, in conformity
with the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court also makes it very clear that if punishment is issued
without leaving the petitioner on the differed findings of the disciplinary authority and the impugned punishment is vitiated.
Further more, the second respondent, the appellate authority, noted that the charges were not proved and however, he proposed to impose
the punishment of increment for one year without cumulative effect on modification. The order of the second respondent, modifying the punishment
is extracted here-under:
...The appellant was awarded the punishment of Postponement of Increment for two year without cumulative effect by the SP/KPM District in PR.
No. 91/02 under Rule 3(a) of TNCS (D & A) Rules 1955 for the following delinquencies.
Gross negligence of duty in having allowed the accused Munusamy to inflict injuries on his stomach with the help of pieces of tube lights on
6.8.2001 at station where he was verifying of M.O. Criminals of Vishnu Kanchi P.S.
2) The appeal is time barred.
3) I have gone through the appeal with connected records carefully. The charges have been held not proved by the E.O. The appellant has not put
forth any fresh points. However to give an opportunity to correct himself, I take a lenient view and modify the punishment of Postponement of
increment for two years without cumulative effect into that of Postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect.
When the second respondent recorded that the charges were not proved, there is no question of any penalty. In these circumstances the first
respondent also did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and simply rejected the revision of the petitioner.
In these circumstances, the order dated 18.01.2003 of the third respondent, order dated 30.11.2002 of the second respondent and order
dated 08.05.2003 of the first respondent are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.