AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.—Challenging the order dated 03.01.2003 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 7424 of
1995, the present writ petition has been filed.
The first respondent herein was employed as Grade II Police Constable attached to T. Kallipatty Police Station in Madurai District. During the
course of his employment, in respect of certain alleged omission and commission, he was suspended from service with effect from 28.08.1985.
Thereafter, a charge memo in P.R. No. 72 of 1992 dated 22.05.1992 was issued to him containing two charges, they are as follows:
Grave misconduct of actively running prostitution and encouraging the activities of one Thilakraj, a pimp in running prostitution in T. Kallupatti
area during the year 1985 till 03.07.195 which resulted in a case of murder of one Sakthivel of T. Kallupatti.
Unauthorised absence from duty on 10.07.1985 and in having visited Sivakasi on 10.07.1985 without leave or permission while on duty in T.
Kallupatti P.S. and neglected your duty.
Denying the charges levelled against him, the first respondent has submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation offered, the third
petitioner herein, who is the disciplinary authority, has appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam has enquiry officer. The
enquiry officer conducted an inquiry and arrived at a finding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry
officer, the disciplinary authority/third petitioner herein has passed an order dated 15.12.1992 dismissing the first respondent from service.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the first respondent has preferred an appeal before the second petitioner herein, which was rejected on
15.06.1993. As against the same, he has preferred a review petition to the first petitioner, which was also rejected on 25.06.1994, with the result,
O.A. No. 7424 of 1995 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed on 03.01.2003, hence the present writ
petition.
The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submitted that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the
evidence adduced in the disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent which is contrary to the settled propositions of Law. It is further
submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the first respondent was dismissed from service after following the procedures
contemplated under Law. It is not the case of the first respondent that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice,
while so, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the conclusion arrived at by the petitioners. It is also pointed out by the learned Additional
Government Pleader that the Tribunal without taking note of the fact that the first respondent herein was charged for a grave offence has
erroneously interfered with the decision arrived at by the Tribunal and prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that this is a case of no evidence. There is no direct evidence
available to prove the guilt of the first respondent, hence, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the orders passed by the authorities. The learned
Senior counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the fact that evidence recorded behind the back of the first respondent
herein were relied on by the authorities to base a conclusion that the charges against him were proved. It is well settled that the evidence recorded
in the preliminary enquiry not to be relied on to pass an order adverse to the delinquent and such order is invalid. It is further submitted by the
learned Senior counsel that the Criminal Court acquitted the first respondent herein by its Judgment dated 19.10.1990 in S.C. No. 172 of 1990 in
respect of the same set of charges and only thereafter, after an inordinate delay, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent
herein, hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated. In such circumstance, the Tribunal is right in re-appreciating the evidence recorded during the
enquiry and came to a conclusion that the charges against the first respondent are not proved. To support of the above contentions, the learned
Senior counsel relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, ; P.V.
Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and also a decision of the decision of Division Bench of this Court District Revenue Officer,
Erode District, Erode v. R. Palanisamy, Assistant, Erode District Revenue Unit, Erode and Anr. (2006) 1 MLJ 169 and prayed for dismissal of
the writ petition.
We have heard the arguments of the counsel on either side and perused the material records. It is well settled that acquittal by the criminal court
will not preclude the department from holding departmental proceedings and it would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance
with the rules and regulations in force. The two proceedings operate in different fields and have different objectives. While the object of Criminal
trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the accused for the offences alleged, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the employee
departmentally against the misconduct alleged. Therefore, though there is a delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the first
respondent, we see no reason to hold that the departmental proceedings are vitiated on the grounds of delay.
To prove the charges against the first respondent, eight witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer supported by documentary
evidence. The charge No. 2 against the first respondent is that he absented himself from duty on 10.07.1985 and visited Sivakasi without leave or
permission while on duty in T. Kallupatti Police Station. To prove the said charge Pws 1 to 8 were examined. PW4 Kuruvammal in her evidence
has clearly deposed that the first respondent was very much present in the scene of occurrence on the relevant date. The evidence of PW4
Kuruvammal is to the following effect:
On the day of occurrence of murder of Sakthivel, Chettiar took two girls to the pump set room. She was keeping outside. Sakthivel enjoyed one
girl. Then there was quarrel between constable Rajendran and Sakthivel. One Natarajan was also there. Rajendran snatched the towel of
Natarajan and went inside the room. Thereafter there was no noise inside the room. During the quarrel, Rajendran asked Sakthivel as to why he
was there and Sakthivel replied that when police could be there, he could also be there. Constable Rajendran convened her through Chettiar that I
should not reveal anything about him. She saw both Rajendran and Chettiar threw the dead body of Sakthivel into the well. When Sakthivel
wanted to enjoy the girl, Constable Rajendran asked him whether he was having money to enjoy the girl. Sakthivel told him that he would pay
money direct to her. But Rajendran told him that only on paying money, he could enjoy and demanded money from Sakthivel directly and not
through the girl, before he could enjoy the girl. Constable Rajendran used to take girls to Police quarters. He also wanted to take me to police
quarters, but I refused. She had seen Rajendran twice with Rani. Rajendran is a bad character and used to bring girls for prostitution business. He
was widely known for this in entire Kallupatty.
In the cross-examination of PW4, nothing could be elicited by the first respondent so as to disbelieve her evidence. PW6 in his evidence has
deposed that Thilakraj used to tell him that only due to the support and help of the police constable Rajendran (the first respondent), he was able
to conduct such business at T. Kallupatty. The Petitioners have also filed documentary evidence before the enquiry officer to prove that the first
respondent was absent from duty on the relevant date without leave or permission from the police station. Though the learned Senior counsel for
the first respondent submitted that the first respondent was falsely implicated in the case and that the evidence adduced by the witnesses were
cooked up story, the facts and circumstance clearly establish the presence of the first respondent in the place of occurrence on the relevant date
and we see no materials to disregard the evidence adduced by the witnesses before the enquiry officer.
The Tribunal found that the findings are based only on the statements alleged to have been recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which
are not sustainable and it is a case where the same witnesses have given up the statements and clearly stated that they are not aware of the contents
of those statements which were just marked through them and treated as Chief Examination by the enquiry officer. In effect, the Tribunal re-
appreciated the entire evidence adduced by the witnesses before the enquiry officer. Therefore, the only point to be decided now is as to whether
the Tribunal is right in re-appreciating the evidence or not.
The argument of the learned Senior counsel for the first respondent that there is no direct evidence available to implicate the first respondent to
the charges levelled against him, which was rightly considered by the Tribunal while setting aside the order of the authorities. In this context, it is
relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in The High Court of Judicature at The High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Through Its Registrar Vs. Shashikant S.Patil and Another, wherein it is held that
interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the
mode of such inquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by consideration extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the
conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a
conclusion or grounds very similar to the above. However, it cannot be overlooked that the departmental authority is the sole judge of the facts, if
the inquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then
adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
The Tribunal was only called upon to to verify whether the delinquent officer was given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made
against him and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with Law, but without any valid reason, it re-appreciated the entire
evidence and came to an erroneous conclusion that the charges against the first respondent are not proved. In our opinion, the Tribunal ought not
to have interfered with the decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate and revisionary authorities. We are
satisfied that there was ample evidence on which the findings of the enquiry officer are based on. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the
order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the order dated 03.01.2003 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 7424 of 1995 is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No
costs.