E. PARTHIBAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the second respondent-Director General of Police in Rc.No.87124/Con.V(1)/2002-1 dated 4.7.2008, as confirmed in G.O.(D) No.521, Home (Pol.IV) Department dated 19.6.2009 passed by the first respondent-Secretary to Government, Home (Pol.IV) Department, in and by which the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner, who was working as Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station.

(2.) Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police in Thoothukudi South Police Station during the year 1998, he was slapped with the charge memo dated 28.10.2002 on the allegation that in collusion with Grade-I Police Constable, PC-879 Mr.S.Chokalingam of Prohibition Enforcement Wing Unit, Thoothukudi, had demanded a bribe of Rs.1,50,000/- on 26.12.98 from one Mr.Solomon of Thoothukudi, who was involved in illicit drug trafficking to favour his clandestine activities without exposing and initiating criminal action against him, and alleged to have accepted a bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.12.98 from the said Mr.Solomon and thereby committed grave misconduct, misdemeanor and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The said charge was referred to the Commissioner of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tirunelveli (for short, the Tribunal ) for enquiry and report by the Government in Home (Police IV) Department in their Letter (MS) No.236 dated 20.3.2002. Thereafter, the Tribunal asked the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi to send the prosecution records relating to the allegations against the petitioner and Mr.S.Chockalingam. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi sent the records to the Tribunal on 28.10.2002. Thereafter, the Tribunal framed charges against both the petitioner and Mr.S.Chockalingam and the same were served upon them on 22.11.2002 and 26.11.2002 respectively. In the meantime, the Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Training) Department, Chennai had requested the department to arrange to obtain necessary formal orders from the Government in Home (Police IV) Department for conducting enquiry by the Tribunal and ratify the action in having proceeded with the enquiry in anticipation of formal orders for transferring the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Nagercoil. Subsequently, the Government also withdrew the case of the petitioner and Mr.S.Chockalingam, Grade-I PC from the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tirunelveli and transferred the same to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Nagercoil in the order (2D) No.22 dated 20.1.2005. In the meanwhile, when the matter was posted for examination of witnesses on 20.1.2003, 13 prosecution witnesses were examined and 9 exhibits in prosecution side and one exhibit in defence side were marked upto 4.8.2003. After two years, on examination of 19 prosecution witnesses and on marking of 11 exhibits on the prosecution side and 3 exhibits on the defence side totally, the enquiry was concluded and the petitioner was asked to file his written statement. Accordingly, a written statement dated 3.5.2006 was filed.

(3.) Further elaborating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned counsel submitted that when the case of the prosecution proceeded on the footing that Mr.Solomon, P.W.15 made a complaint that he was demanded Rs.1,50,000/- by Mr.S.Chockalingam, Grade-I PC on behalf of the petitioner, the very same Solomon, P.W.15 and another witness Mr.Raju, P.W.16 turned hostile to the prosecution. Moreover, Mr.Solomon, P.W.15, who is alleged to have met the petitioner at Ratina Lodge, wherein the accused is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, has specifically stated in the enquiry that the petitioner and Mr.S.Chockalingam did not demand any such bribe. Followed by Mr.Solomon, P.W.15, one Mr.Raju, P.W.16 also turned hostile. Moreover, although 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of them, P.Ws.1,3,4,6,7,9,10,14 and 16 have not spoken anything about the charge of this case either in their chief examination or cross examination. The learned counsel further argued that P.Ws.2,15,16 and 17 turned hostile. Besides, one another important aspect of this case is the evidence regarding the alleged surrender of Rs.75,000/- by the accused officers as bribe money mentioned by them. But, unfortunately, to bring home the said charge, the prosecution has not taken any effort to produce the said amount either in the enquiry or was sent to the Tribunal. Therefore, when the amount was neither produced nor marked before the Tribunal, there is no documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to show that the amount was also kept in the office of District Police Office, Thoothukudi. In addition thereto, P.W.13 admitted that he did not prepare any mahazar for receiving the amount from the accused officers. Even though P.W.13 had stated that the amount was handed over to P.W.8, surprisingly, no acknowledgment or receipt was produced. Again canvassing on the failure of the prosecution to establish the case that the other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.15 to 17 have not supported the prosecution case, the Tribunal had no other option except to accept the case of the petitioner that no charge as framed against the accused was proved. But erroneously, the Tribunal submitted a report holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence.