AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner was a Police Constable driver. The Petitioner was under the control of Inspector of Police, Motor Transport, Madurai. On 05.08.2000, the Inspector deputed him to go to Chennai by police vehicle (van) to bring question papers to Madurai for Police Constable Selection from the Uniformed Service Recruitment Board.
Accordingly, the Petitioner went to Chennai and collected the question papers and proceeded towards Madurai. Along with him, one Head Constable by name Jeyamani and another constable namely Mohamed Musthaba travelled in the vehicle. When the vehicle was coming near M. Pudaiyur in Cuddalore District, a cattle suddenly crossed the road. The Petitioner applied brake and took diversion and the vehicle was dragged on and dashed against the tree on the road side causing an accident. In the said accident, the vehicle was severely damaged and also the Police Constable, who was inside the vehicle, died. A criminal case was registered against him under Sections 279, 378 and 304(A) IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi acquitted him of all the charges.
However, the first Respondent issued a charge memo, dated 03.03.2001 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal Rules) alleging that the Petitioner was rash and negligent in driving of the police vehicle and caused an accident, while he was returning on 05.08.2000 from Chennai to Madurai at about 03.00 p.m at M. Pudaiyur. The Police Constable Mr. Mohamed Musthaba, who travelled in the vehicle died on 02.09.2000 and the other Head Constable got severely injured. The vehicle also suffered damages and the Petitioner was responsible for the accident.
The Petitioner gave an explanation denying the charges. An enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub-Division. The Inspector of Police, who deputed him to bring question papers from Chennai to Madurai alone was examined as Departmental witness. No other persons were examined in the enquiry. However, the enquiry officer recorded a finding of guilt based on the aforesaid evidence. Based on the said findings of the enquiry officer, the first Respondent passed the impugned order, dated 17.05.2001, imposing the punishment of "Reduction by 3 stage in time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect."
The Petitioner filed an appeal to the second Respondent. The second Respondent disposed the appeal by an order dated 10.01.2002, by modifying the punishment as "postponement of next increment for one year which shall not operate to postpone future increments."
However, the appellate authority stated that the punishment was without prejudice to any action by the second Respondent for recovery of the cost of repairs.
Hence, the Petitioner preferred revision against the aforesaid order of the third Respondent. The third Respondent rejected the revision petition on 11.06.2005.
The first Respondent passed an order, dated 10.11.2008, on the basis of the earlier orders for recovery of Rs. 3,61,670/- towards the cost of repair of the police vehicle, which involved in the accident.
The Petitioner has now filed the present writ petition to quash the orders dated 17.05.2001 and 10.11.2008 of the first Respondent, 10.01.2002 of the second Respondent and 11.06.2005 of the third Respondent.
The Respondents filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations.
Heard both sides.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned orders are perverse, since, there is no legal evidence in support of the findings that the Petitioner was responsible for the accident. According to him, the Criminal Court acquitted him and the same should
have been considered by the Department. The Inspector, who deputed the Petitioner, was examined in the Departmental enquiry. His only evidence could not form the basis for recording a finding of guilt. Furthermore, it is submitted that the only witness examined in the enquiry was not an eye witness and he did not even enquire any eye witness as to how the accident took place.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader seeks to sustain impugned order based on the counter affidavit.
I have considered the submissions made on either side.
As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the only witness examined in the enquiry was the Inspector of Police, Motor Transport, who deputed the Petitioner to bring question papers from Chennai to Madurai. He was not a competent person to speak about the accident. No eye witness was examined and not even the person who conducted the investigation was examined. The Head Constable, who survived the accident and lodged F.I.R was also not examined. No reason is given for not examining the relevant witnesses and on the other hand, relying on the evidence of the Inspector of Police, who was not a eye witness, the enquiry officer recorded a finding of guilt. Based on the findings, the impugned orders have been passed. The order recovering Rs. 3,61,670/- is also based on the finding that the Petitioner was responsible for the accident by rashly and negligently during the vehicle.
Since, the impugned orders are not based on any legal evidence, the impugned orders are to be characterised as perverse. The impugned orders dated 17.05.2001 and 10.11.2008 of the first Respondent, 10.01.2002 of the second Respondent and 11.06.2005 of the third Respondent are quashed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.