P S RAMU Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, P.S.Ramu, while serving as Head Constable, was employed in B3, Fort St. George Police Station (Law & Order) from 12.03.99. THE Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), at Harbour, conducted weekly meeting on every Sunday between 09.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for all the Head Constables and Sub Inspectors to assess their weekly work and also to give instructions for the forthcoming work. THE nature of instructions given to the Head Constables and Sub Inspectors in the weekly meeting on every Sunday relate to how to work in VIP Bandobust, Procession, booking of petty cases, gambling cases, eve teasing, prohibition cases, preventive arrest and how to dispose petty cases and the performance of beats and patrol etc. This being an important meeting for all Head Constables and Sub Inspectors, all of them are to submit their weekly work progress report in the said meeting. On the basis of their performance, which was evaluated by the higher officers, they will be recommended for reward, if any good work is done by them. Whileso, when the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Harbour, conducted meeting on 20.06.99 at 09.00 Hrs, the petitioner did not attend the said meeting deliberately. THErefore, he was issued with a charge memo dated Nil under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, for his failure to submit his performance report and to get the advise at the meeting held on 20.06.99. After receipt of the charge memo, he submitted his explanation dated 06.09.1999 and requested to exonerate him from the charges. In spite of his explanation, the respondent imposed minor punishment of -Black Mark- on the petitioner. THE said minor punishment of black mark is under challenge on the ground that the petitioner was imposed with the punishment by the Inspector of Police, when the Assistant Commissioner of Police is the competent authority. It was further argued that after the submission of his explanation, on the submission of the minutes, without holding any enquiry and without even giving a copy of the enquiry report, the punishment of black mark should not have been imposed on the petitioner and on that basis, prayed for quashing the impugned punishment of black mark.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the punishment imposed was dealt with under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, for his failure to attend the weekly Sunday meeting between 09.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., which was usually held to assess the Head Constables and Sub Inspectors weekly work and also to give instructions for the forthcoming work as how to work in VIP Bandobust, Procession, booking of petty cases, gambling cases, eve teasing, prohibition cases, preventive arrest and how to dispose petty cases and the performance of beats and patrol etc. Since the petitioner failed to attend the said important meeting, he was instructed to attend the meeting separately at 4.30 p.m. on the same day by the Sub Inspector, Marimuthu of B-3 Fort Police Station, for which he was given a memo for attending the meeting, but the petitioner did not receive the memo and refused to sign the acknowledgement. Thus, he disobeyed the orders of the Sub Inspector. Therefore, for dereliction of duty for not attending the weekly meeting on Sunday at 09.00 hrs. and for disobeying the orders of the Sub Inspector in not receiving the memo to attend the same meeting in the evening by 04.30 p.m., the petitioner was served with a charge memo under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, on the basis of the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Harbour Range. The petitioner also, in his explanation, pleaded that he may be exonerated for the said lapse as he has not done it deliberately. Therefore, the petitioner himself has prayed for exoneration on the ground that he was unaware of the said meeting and this was his first lapse. ON the basis of his submission, minor punishment of black mark only was imposed. Therefore, the said punishment does not call for any oral enquiry as per the Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955. Whileso, the petitioner cannot cross-examine the Sub Inspector of Police, who made entries to the General Diary and on that basis, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) IN view of the dereliction of duty for not attending the weekly meeting on Sunday at 09.00 hrs. and for disobeying the orders of the Sub INspector in not receiving the memo to attend the same meeting in the evening by 04.30 p.m., the petitioner was served with a charge memo under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, in Pr No.40/99 by the INspector of Police, B-3 Fort Police Station, as per the orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Harbour Range. After issuance of the charge memo calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 06.09.1999 before the INspector of Police, B-3 Fort Police Station and the INspector of Police having prepared his minutes forwarded the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Police for suitable action to be taken against the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, having seen the explanation given to the charge memo by the petitioner stating that he was probationer in the category of Head Constable and he was unaware of the Standing Orders that all the Head Constables and Sub INspectors of Police should attend the weekly meeting held by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and also going through the other part of the explanation given by the petitioner alleging that the Sub INspector Marimuthu has furnished incorrect and false report against him and also came to see the fact that the petitioner refused to acknowledge the memorandum asking him to attend the weekly meeting at 4.30 p.m. on 20.06.99, declined to exonerate the petitioner from the charges and awarded minor punishment of black mark on the basis of proved minutes submitted by the enquiry officer holding him guilty of all the charges. Therefore, the petitioner was admittedly dealt with under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 and he was also imposed with a minor punishment of black mark. Hence, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner is entitled to have a detailed hearing and also entitled to receive a copy of the enquiry report. The INspector of Police has submitted his minutes, after examining the explanation given by the petitioner and holding him guilty of all the charges. Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, does not contemplate holding of a detailed enquiry for imposition of any minor punishment, like black mark imposed against the petitioner for the proved disobedience and dereliction of the duty. As per the Police Standing Orders 73(1)(b), the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is the competent authority, can appoint any of his subordinates to frame charges, conduct enquiry and to draw minutes. When there is a specific standing order in the Police Department, there is no need to hold an oral enquiry. Therefore, admittedly, the petitioner cannot cross-examine the Sub INspector of Police, who made entries in the General Diary. IN respect of contention made by the petitioner that he should be given a copy of the minutes, it is relevant to mention that as per the Police Standing Orders 73(1)(b), the INspector of Police can frame a charge and put up minutes after receiving the explanation from the petitioner. Therefore, the INspector of Police, who has been authorised by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, as per the Police Stand Orders, the petitioner cannot complain want of jurisdiction for the INspector of Police to prepare the minutes. Further, as pointed out earlier, there is no need for holding an oral enquiry for the charges framed under Rule 3(a). As per the Police Standing Order 81 c1(1), the petitioner is entitled to get a copy of the minutes, provided he applies for it from the City Police Officer after the punishment order is served upon him, but not before that stage. Further, though the punishment of black mark imposed against the petitioner is appealable before the Appellate Authority, Deputy Commissioner of Police, without resorting to the appeal remedy, the petitioner has wrongly filed this petition. This Court, having seen the fact that the petitioner had also in his explanation submitted before the authority that he may be exonerated from the charge on the ground that he was only a probationer in the category of Head Constable and was also unaware of the Standing Order that all the Head Constables and Sub INspectors of Police should attend the weekly meeting with their performance report, the petitioner cannot plead that he should be excused for not attending the important weekly Sunday meeting. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the minor punishment of black mark for the change of dereliction of duty and disobeying the orders of the Sub INspector of Police, which is highly reprehensible conduct in the disciplined police force. There being no merit, the present writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.