AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—This writ petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police at Villupuram Taluk Police Station under the fourth
respondent. While working in the said capacity, he used to register several cases under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and got conviction of the
Offenders. He was later transferred to Ulundurpet Police Station and while working there, a charge memo dated 10.05.2006, came to be issued
against him under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service (D & A) Rules, 1955 to the effect that he has altered and minimized the
Section of Law on 14 prohibition cases registered during the year 2004-2005 and gave disposal without obtaining Chemical Report from the
Forensic Laboratory. The charge which was framed against the petitioner was as follows:
Reprehensible conduct in having altered and minimized the section of Law on the 14 prohibition cases registered during the year 2004-2005 and
giving disposal to them without obtaining chemical report from the Forensic Laboratory while the delinquent Sub-Inspector of Police was serving in
Villupuram Taluk P.S.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, namely, the fourth respondent, Tindivanam Sub Division, Villupuram District was appointed as Enquiry
Officer, who, after conducting enquiry into the charges, for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 01.08.2006, has submitted his
report dated 27.10.2006 holding the petitioner responsible for the charge. The petitioner has submitted his further explanation on 11.11.2006 on
receipt of the Enquiry Officer''s report and subsequently, the third respondent, the Original Authority has imposed punishment on 12.12.2006 on
the petitioner of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for the period of two years without cumulative effect. It was against the said order
of the third respondent, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the second respondent on 13.01.2007 and the second respondent by his
proceedings dated 28.05.2007 has confirmed the original order of the third respondent. The petitioner has filed a further mercy petition to the first
respondent on 06.12.2007. The first respondent in the order dated 08.04.2008, while accepting with the finding of both the original as well as the
appellate authority, has however reduced the quantum of punishment by modifying the same to reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for
the period of one year which shall not operate the postponement of his future increments. It is as against the said orders of the first, second and
third respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed.
The impugned orders are assailed mainly on the ground that the petitioner being the Sub-ordinate Officer of the Police Station has acted only as
per the instruction of the superiors. Further it is the case of the petitioner that even during the course of the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer, the
Inspector of Police who has deposed has clearly admitted that such procedure of registering the case without obtaining chemical report from the
Forensic Laboratory has been followed in various cases under his control for which no action were initiated against him. The petitioner has been
singled out and therefore there is a discrimination. Further it is the case of the petitioner that the disciplinary authorities as well as the appellate
authority have failed to note that by such conduct, the petitioner has only facilitated the disposal of many number of criminal cases on the
prohibition offences and there was no personal gain by such conduct.
In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, who is the original authority inflicted the punishment, while denying the various allegations as
regards the case of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is stated that oral enquiry was conducted in the manner
known to law and the petitioner was given full opportunity in which he has participated and it was only after a finding arrived at, the charge against
the petitioner has been proved and the third respondent has passed the impugned order of punishment. It is also stated by the third respondent that
there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has acted as per the instructions of the Superior Officer for the purpose of not referring the
prohibition matters for chemical report. It is also stated that in prohibition cases, Chemical Analysis Report is a mandatory requirement and the
petitioner having worked in the Police Department for 18 years cannot say that he was not aware of the said procedure. It is also stated that the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner only due to the reason that the petitioner has not followed the instruction in respect of
the prosecutions regarding the prohibition offences and not for any other reason and inasmuch as, in the course of enquiry, the charges have been
proved especially when sufficient opportunity has been given to him, the petitioner cannot complain about any procedural irregularities.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even during the enquiry proceedings when the Inspector of Police in-charge of
the Police Station was examined as a witness, during his cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that he himself has not followed the
procedure for obtaining the chemical report from the Forensic Laboratory in prosecuting the prohibition offences. Therefore, according to the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, the evidence which is available on record has not been properly appreciated by both the first respondent in the
mercy petition as well as the appellate authority. It is his submission that when the Inspector of Police in-charge of the Police Station, who is the
higher authority of the petitioner himself has not been following the said procedure, the charges framed against the petitioner should be treated only
as arbitrary and detrimental to the petitioner, as he has been singled out.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has taken such efforts only for the purpose of completing the prohibition offences for a speedy
disposal, no fault can be found against him especially when there was no complaint from any quarters, or the persons who were prosecuted have
not even appealed to the higher forums. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even if the issue was not raised, the Police Standing
Orders especially with reference to 97 would apply to the facts of the present case and the authority should absolve the petitioner from the
punishment.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Inspector of Police has admitted that he has not followed the procedure
regarding the sending the matters for chemical report and therefore, on that ground, the petitioner should have been absolved from the charge has
no basis whatsoever. The punishing authority, in the original order of punishment dated 12.12.2006, has clearly stated that the improper act done
by the petitioner was done not with the approval of the seniors. The fact as to whether the Inspector of Police, who happens to be the senior
officer of the petitioner in the police station has followed the procedure or not is not an issue to fix the responsibility on the petitioner. It is the case
of the petitioner that he has not followed the established procedure in respect of the prohibition offences only as per the instructions of the Superior
Officer, but the finding of the original disciplinary authority shows that there has been no approval of such improper conduct by the seniors of the
petitioner. In such circumstances, the stand taken during the course of evidence that the Senior Officer has himself done such improper conduct is
of no avail to the petitioner at all. Even assuming that some other senior officer of the petitioner was having improper conduct, it does not mean that
the petitioner cannot be proceeded with for his improper conduct. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in the position for 18 years and it is not his
case that he was not aware of referring the prohibition offences for chemical report. In such circumstances, I do not see any illegality in the order
passed by the original authority for imposing the punishment.
On a perusal of the entire records, it shows that it has never been the complaint of the petitioner at any point of time that there has been any
procedural illegality in the proceedings that the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity before the enquiry. On the other hand, the
petitioner has participated in detail and cross-examined every one of the witnesses before the Enquiry Officers and there is nothing to presume that
any iota of the principles of natural justice has been denied to him. Law is well settled that in disciplinary proceedings, the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to decide about the correctness of the decisions, but it is the manner in which the decision has
been arrived at, which means that while passing the order in the disciplinary proceedings, the authorities are expected to give proper opportunity
and follow the procedure. On the other hand, the authority while appreciation of the evidence let in during the course of the enquiry does not lie in
this Court to decide the sufficiency or otherwise of such evidence.
The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of not following the procedure, the petitioner has only facilitated the
speedy disposal of the prohibition offences and there was no personal gain because of such conduct has also no meaning. It is not the question of
disposal of the case pending before the criminal Court in respect of the disciplinary proceedings, but it is the question of following the established
procedures in prosecuting the offenders in the prohibition cases, as such procedures are certainly the guidelines and also proper safeguards for the
life and liberty of the persons, who are accused of having committed such offences.
Further reliance placed on PSO 97 is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. A reading of the said Police
Standing Orders, would show that it relates to minor offences etc., in which cases, an opportunity is given to the authority to wait for 3 to 6 months
to monitor the conduct of the delinquent officer and if the conduct was substantiated it is open to the authority to drop further proceedings and if
not, to proceed with the implementation of the punishment. Further in this case, the charges have been levelled against the petitioner under 3(b)
Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service (D & A) Rules, 1955 and in such circumstances, the PSO referred by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
For all the reasons stated above, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the first respondent.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.