P.SHANMUGAM Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to an order, dated 14.02.2006, of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range, Tiruchirappalli District, modifying the punishment of dismissal into that of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years, which shall operate to postpone future increments for three years.

(2.) PLEADINGS disclose that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo, dated 29.07.2005, by the Superintendent of Police, Karur District, alleging that on 10.07.2005, he had gone to Thondukalipalayam, accompanied by one Rajkumar, Constable and threatened one Duraisamy, a retired teacher and another, alleging gambling and that the petitioner and another constable had received Rs.900.00 as bribe for not arresting them. The petitioner has submitted his explanation, rebutting the charges. According to him, he did not go to Thondukalipalayam as alleged, but, he had gone to Kulandaipalayam and Karvili Villages. Relevant General Diary entries were made in the Station Register. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur, appointed the Additional Superintendent of Police (Prohibition), Karur District, as the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. According to the petitioner, during the said enquiry, witnesses have not identified the petitioner. The witnesses examined during the preliminary enquiry did not depose anything against the petitioner, alleging that he had received any bribe amount.

(3.) TAKING this Court through the explanation, oral testimony of the witnesses and placing reliance on the decision of this Court in R.Sakthivel Vs. The Director General of Police, reported in 2011 (2) CWC 53 and Union of Indian and others Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, reported in (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 78, Mr.Mohammed Imran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of charge of corruption, the probe should be beyond any shadow of doubt and that it cannot be proved by mere probability. Since in the case of corruption, a charged official is liable to be prosecuted and also liable for grave penalty, the findings cannot be recorded without any strong evidence.