ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Vs. T. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was working as a Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Government. Three charge -memos were issued to him.

(2.) Charge -memo dated June 21, 1991 stated that he absented from duty for 17 hours on March 31, 1991 on his own accord without intimating his whereabouts in having failed to obtain sick passport from a nearby police station but reported for duty on April 14, 1991 with a controversial medical certificate and special report. Charge -memo dated January 5, 1992 stated that the respondent did not attend the parade on February 12, 1991 at the time of annual mobilisation and scolded the Duty Reserve Sub -Inspector indecently, picking up a quarrel in an arrack shop in a drunken mood demanding bribe etc. Charge -memo dated July 23, 1992 stated that he was in a drunken mood while on guard duty in Ward No. 25 on July 2, 1992 at 10.30 hours, behaved in an indecent manner and used vulgar language. He was also placed under suspension pending enquiry. The respondent filed three applications in OAs Nos. 1932, 1933 and 4081 of 1992 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras seeking to quash the charge -memos dated June 21, 1991 and July 23, 1992 respectively on the ground that the same had been issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police who was not the appointing authority to initiate the inquiry proceedings while charge -memo dated January 5, 1992 was attacked on the ground that there was an inordinate delay of more than one year in issuing the same and was not preceded by any preliminary enquiry prior to framing of the charge. On similar aforesaid allegations, minor penalties were imposed upon certain other persons and therefore the charge -memo issued against the respondent amounts to invidious discrimination. The Tribunal accepted the plea raised by the respondent and was of the view that the Additional Superintendent of Police has no authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and the charge -memo dated January 5, 1992 was stale. The Tribunal also accepted the ground of discrimination and therefore, set aside the charge -memos as well as the order pertaining to suspension. Hence, this appeal, by the State of Tamil Nadu by special leave.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the points raised in this appeal are fully covered by the decision of this Court in Inspector General of Police v/s. : (1997)IILLJ191SC inasmuch, as this Court had interpreted the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and has taken the view that departmental enquiry could be initiated by different authorities such as appointing authority, disciplinary authority or even the controlling authority. He submitted that delay by itself will not be fatal to the enquiry unless the same has resulted in any prejudice to the official against whom enquiry is initiated. In this case, it is pointed out that no such plea of prejudice has been raised.