R SAKTHIVEL Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOLLOWING a departmental enquiry in P.R. No. 312 of 2003, dated 11.1.2005 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai, passed an order dated 11.1.2005, imposing a punishment of postponement of increment for three years, which shall operate to postpone his future increments from the date of service of this order. The effect of the said order, if any on pension, was considered and intended. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 8.2.2005, before the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, the second respondent herein and the same was rejected on 15.7.2005. The review petition dated 2.2.2006 made by the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Chennai, the first respondent herein was also rejected by order dated 17.2.2006. Challenging the above said orders, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post from the date on which the petitioner's juniors were promoted.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows: While the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station, Madurai District, he was placed under suspension on 28.9.2003 based on a complaint dated 20.9.2003 given by one Mr.Rajapandi, an auto-rickshaw driver alleging that the petitioner, at 11.00 p.m., on 15.9.2003, sought for certain documents pertaining to his vehicle and since the complainant could not furnish the documents, his vehicle was retained in Chekkaroorani Police Station till the next day morning by 16.9.2003, without registering any criminal case, and that the petitioner had also demanded a sum of Rs. 2,500/- through police constables Murugan and Mr. Virumandi. It was further alleged that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.1,500/- on the next day on 17.9.2003 and Another sum of Rs. 500/- through the constables. Departmental action has been taken in P.R. No. 312/03 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai, framing three charges against the petitioner and the other police constables. THE Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Madurai District was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner, in his explanation dated 27.2.2004, denied the allegations levelled in the charge memorandum and further, submitted that on 15.9.2003 he had checked vehicles in Chellampatti bus stop on Checkaroorani National Highways and at that time, finding that auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No. TN-58-B-3686 was driven without a valid driving licence, issued a police notice in No. 84258 and further, directed the driver to produce the records relating to the said vehicle on the next day. It is the further explanation of the petitioner that on 17.9.2003, the offender produced the records pertaining to the vehicle. He has further contended that the police notice dated 15.9.2003, defence document No. 1, was produced before the Enquiry Officer. In order to wreck vengeance on the petitioner and to transfer him out of Highways duty, the complainant Rajapandi and Others have made a false complaint and that the Enquiry Officer has failed to advert to the explanation and erroneously came to the conclusion, on the basis of the statements said to have been given by the prosecution witnesses in the preliminary enquiry.

(3.) THE petitioner has contended that the petitioner, there were three counts of charges, (i) not registering any case against the traffic offenders; (ii) demand and acceptance of bribe from the offenders; and (in) retention of a vehicle in Checkaroorani Police Station. According to him, motor vehicle petty cases have been registered against the offenders on 15.9.2003 and 17.9.2003 respectively and the police notices were also issued, consequent to the same, the offenders have pleaded guilty before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti and, therefore, when the first count of the charge that the petitioner had not registered any criminal case against the offenders is not substantiated and whereas, the petitioner has proved that he had done his duty diligently, there is no question of proceeding further, to enquire as to whether there was any demand of money for not registering criminal cases. He has further submitted that though the witnesses have turned hostile, the Enquiry Officer, in a most biased and prejudiced manner, has arrived at the guilt of the petitioner, on surmises and conjectures, without any evidence, either oral or documentary to prove that the petitioner had received money from the police constables. According to him, the formulation of the charge itself is not grounded on any positive and tangible evidence and the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, is purely based on suspicion.