M. JANAGARAJAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 16.4.1997 and the petitioner was upgraded as Grade I, P.C., in 2007 and further upgraded as Head Constable in April, 2014. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 2/2003 on the file of Dhali Police Station, Tiruppur District, for offence under Section 304(b) IPC for having driven his wife to commit suicide by demanding dowry. Therefore, a departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, levelling two charges, firstly, demanding dowry of a house or a sum of Rs. 3 lakh by cash, he has ill -treated his wife and therefore, the wife committed suicide unable to bear the cruelty and dowry harassment and secondly, a case has been registered against him in Crime No. 2/2013 for offence under section 304(B) IPC and by his conduct, he has brought disrepute to the department and he absconded from 11.01.2003 without getting any permission or leave for the purpose of avoiding arrest in Crime No. 2/2013. During pendency of the departmental proceedings, criminal trial also proceeded with and he was acquitted by judgment dated 12.10.2004. Nevertheless, the departmental proceedings continued and during departmental proceedings, evidence was let in by the department to prove the dowry harassment by examining 9 witnesses and the enquiry officer found him guilty and that was accepted and he was imposed punishment of pay reduction by two stages for two years with cumulative effect and the punishment of reduction shall operate to postpone his future increment for two years by order dated 25.5.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police. That order has become final.

(2.) THE father of the deceased, namely, the father -in -law of the petitioner, who was the de -facto complainant in Crime No. 2/2003, filed a Criminal Revision Case No. 1880 of 2004 before this Court against the order of acquittal in S.C. No. 311 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Coimbatore District and so also the brother of the deceased filed Criminal Revision Case No. 1907 of 2014. This Court, after hearing both the cases together, by common order dated 31.1.2013 set aside the order of acquittal and ordered retrial. Thereafter, retrial was conducted by the Magalir Neethi Mandram, Tiruppur in S.C. No. 88 of 2013 and in that retrial, the petitioner was found guilty for offence under Section 306 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and he filed an appeal against the conviction before this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2014 and he also applied for suspension of the substantial sentence. Thereafter, on the basis of the conviction in the criminal case, he was issued with a show cause notice by the respondent by invoking PSO 59(1) under rule 3(c)(i)(1) of TNPSS (D & A) Rules 1955 calling for his explanation as to why a major penalty should not be imposed on him as per the rules stipulated in Police Standing Order for having convicted in the criminal case. He submitted his explanation stating that he applied for suspension of sentence. Without considering the same, an order of dismissal was passed on 23.6.2014 and this order is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(3.) MR . A. Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, reiterating the allegations made in the counter affidavit submitted that he was punished in the earlier disciplinary proceedings, and punishment was on the ground of bringing disrepute to the department by his involvement in the criminal case by driving his wife to commit suicide by demanding dowry, but the present misconduct is on the basis of conviction by the criminal court and therefore, both cannot be said to be on the same grounds and relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in : (2008) 2 MLJ 1203 in the matter of Manikandan and others Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and others, and submitted that it is not a case of double jeopardy and therefore, the punishment of dismissal based on the conviction is fully justified and there is no need to interfere with the punishment. He therefore submitted that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was issued with show cause notice and he also gave explanation and as there was no further proof required, as the petitioner was admittedly convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC, it amounts to moral turpitude and as per PSO 59(1), a police officer convicted of offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to undergo imprisonment shall be dismissed from service and therefore, the petitioner was dismissed.