N RAMASUBBU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.3187 of 2005 dated 17.10.2007 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 04.04.2005 and to grant all consequential benefits to the appellant.

(2.) The appellant / writ petitioner was appointed as Grade-1 Police Constable on 15.04.1974 by direct recruitment and he was promoted as Head Constable on 13.07.1982 and then promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 25.05.1995. It is seen from the facts placed before this Court that while he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, in K.Pudur Police Station, a case in Crime No.126 of 1999 was registered against one Baskaran alias Vedigundu Baskaran for offences under the Explosive Substances Act and he was arrested on 18.12.1999 by the Inspector of Police, one Vallinayagam, to whom, the appellant assisted as Sub-Inspector of Police. The said Baskaran alias Vedigundu Baskaran gave confessional statement which discloses the long standing enmity between him and one Ravi alias Solai Ravi. The appellant alleges that one Sakthivel, Inspector of Police, CB-CID, who was investigating the case in Crime No.352 of 1999 on the file of Alanganallur Police Station, called on the appellant to sign the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The appellant was cited as Prosecution Witness No.21 in S.C.No.398 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. The said criminal case was filed against one Solai Muthiah, a retired Superintendent of Police and others for offences under Sections 364, 120-B, 302 and 201 IPC on the charge that the accused who were all police officials, had misused their powers and kidnapped Baskaran alias Vedigundu Baskaran, the accused in Crime No.126 of 1999, and had burnt him to death to screen the evidence. It is stated that in the course of his confessional statement, the said Baskaran alias Vedigundu Baskaran had spoken about one Ramaswami, the second accused in the case, who is stated to have contacted the appellant subsequently to find out the whereabouts of the said Baskaran alias Vedigundu Baskaran, and that the appellant had informed Ramaswami that Baskaran alias Vedigundu Baskaran had come out on bail and was staying at some place called "Iyer Bungalow". It is seen from the evidence recorded in the course of the proceedings of the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant is stated to have deposed that he did not know about the second accused-Ramaswami and he was not enquired before Ramaswami. It is also stated that the appellant was not enquired before the CB-CID police. Thus the appellant was treated as hostile witness. It is further seen from the documents placed before this Court that in citing the evidence given by the appellant, as prejudicial to the Department's interest and not reflecting the discipline and dignity of the services to which the appellant belongs to, the appellant was placed under suspension by order dated 25.08.2004 under Rule 3(e)(1)(i) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955.

(3.) The appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.1215 of 2004 before this Court, against the order of suspension. By order dated 15.09.2004, this Court granted interim stay. Subsequently, he was issued with the charge memo dated 20.10.2004 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, with regard to the implication of the charges alleged about the statement made by the appellant in the course of enquiry before the CB-CID and subsequently, he turned hostile in the course of evidence before the Magistrate's Court. In the course of the Departmental Enquiry, the appellant gave his written statement and refuted the allegations about the statement given before the CB-CID. It is contended that no signature could have been obtained in a statement given in the course of 161 Cr.P.C. proceedings and hence, the signature said to have been obtained from him, was of no consequence and cannot be relied upon. Going through the events, ultimately, the facts were found against the appellant, which ultimately led to the passing of an order of punishment of compulsory retirement from services. The order thus passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, was challenged before this Court in the above writ petition.