V BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was issued with a charge memo for the following charge : Highly reprehensible conduct in having behaved in a disorderly manner with Kottursamy S/o Chellasamy Thevar of Chockampatti in a drunken mood on 02.04.99 and being involved in a criminal case in Kadayanallur PS Cr.No.329/99 under Section 4(1)(j) TNP Act and 75 MCP Act. After receiving the above said charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charge. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer, after examining P.Ws.1 to 4 and by giving all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner, submitted his report holding him guilty of the charge levelled against the petitioner. Again, the petitioner was given opportunity to submit his second explanation, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority, having not satisfied with the second explanation offered by the petitioner, who being a Grade-I Police Constable, behaved in a disorderly manner with one Kottursamy in a drunken mood on 02.04.99 and also being involved in a criminal case in Kadayanallur Police Station Cr.No.329/99 under Section 4(1)(i) TNP Act and 75 MCP Act, found him not fit for continuing as Police Constable and therefore, he was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. The said punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the 1st respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was charged for having shown disorderly behaviour with one Kottursamy, at his hotel at Chockkampatti Village and in a drunken mood asked for fried fish and when the hotel owner, Kottursamy asked for money for the fish, even after the petitioner consumed the said fish, the petitioner being a Grade-I Police Constable, abused the hotel owner in a filthy language and went away without giving money. In his further submission, it was contended that the very complainant Kottursamy, after giving complaint, when he appeared before the enquiry officer, he turned hostile. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner, may not have any basis. Further, in his submission it was argued that the Doctor, who was examined as P.W4, in his cross examination, admitted that only after finding smell of alcohol in the breath, the petitioner was issued with a drunken certificate. Therefore, without subjecting the petitioner to proper medical cross-examination, like, blood test or urine test, the certificate of drunkenness issued by the P.W4, should not have been accepted by the enquiry officer to hold him guilty. In his further submission, it was submitted that in any event, the charge made having not established due to the complainant turning hostile, the impugned punishment of dismissal from service should be set aside.

(3.) Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that though the complainant one Kottursamy, in whose hotel, the petitioner misbehaved in a drunken mood and after eating food with fried fish, on money being demanded for the above said item, the delinquent abused him in filthy language. P.W1, is the hotel owner and P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined. One P.W.2, Narayanan, Inspector of Police, Kallidaikurichi, deposed that on 02.04.99 at about 15.00 hrs., P.W1 appeared before him and gave a statement alleging that on 02.04.99 around 13.30 hrs., the delinquent came to his hotel in a drunken mood, ate fried fish and left after hurling abusive language without making any payment. On the basis of his statement, the witness registered a case in Kadayanallur Police Station in Cr.No.329/99 under Section 4(1)(j) TNP Act and 75 MCP Act and took up investigation. Subsequently, on the same day, at about 15.45 hrs., the petitioner was arrested at Therkkuvilai street and was also produced before the Kadayanallur Government Hospital and drunkenness certificate was obtained. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Shencottai for remand. After remand, P.W2 filed a special report before the Superintendent of Police, which was marked as Ex.P2. Again, P.W3-Sundararajan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi also was examined. In his deposition, the evidence given by the PW2 was fully supported. Further, Dr.R.Subramanian, who was examined as PW4 also supported the case of the respondents. On the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 supported with other documents/exhibits, the disciplinary authority found him guilty and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by holding that the petitioner being a Grade-I Police Constable, is unfit to continue as a police constable in the disciplined force. Therefore, the order of punishment imposed by the respondents, does not call for any interference by this Court and on that basis prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.