ARAVAMUDA AYYANGAR R Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 18 June 1960, respondent 1 who is the Commissioner of Police, Madras, terminated the probation of the petitioner as an officiating sub-inspector and reduced his pay in his substantive rank as head constable, by two stages in the time-scale of pay for a period of two years to be spent on duty. This order was the result of a number of charges of the finding corruption framed against the petitioner and that charges (1) (c), (ii) (6), (iii) (and), (iii) (c), (iii) (e), (iii) (i) to (iii) (i), (iv) (b) and (iv) (c) had been proved. The petitioner's appeal and memorial failed. He has now come to this Court asking to quash the order of punishment.

(2.) THE validity of the order is questioned on a number of grounds:

(3.) THE charge of bias against the enquiry officer is levelled with reference to four instances. The enquiry was conducted by one A. V. Thangavelu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Duty, Traffic and Licensing, During the enquiry before him, the petitioner, on 28 September 1959 objected to the presence of one G. K. Ranganathan, Inspector of Police, X Branoh, O. I. D. , on the ground that he was the officer who had recorded the statements of witnesses during investigation. This objection was overruled by the enquiry officer. His reason was the Government in their confidential memorandum insisted upon the presence, in the enquiry of the X Branch officer who had conducted the investigation, for the purpose of assisting the enquiry officer. The Inspector of Police, X Branch, was present at the enquiry throughout. The petitioner contends that this fact had a subtle influence not only over the enquiry officer but also on the witnesses whom in their chief-examination itself, were found to be resiling from their earlier statemants. I think there is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioner. From those facts alone, it cannot be said that the enquiry officer was, in any way, biased or influenced. Nor it is reasonably possible to say from these materials only that the very presence of the investigating officer, while the witnesses were giving evidence, prejudiced the petitioner. The second incident was on 11 January 1960, which occurred when the petitioner was cross-examining a witness by name Doraikannammal. The petitioner asked her whether she could produce account books and suggested to her that she could not do so because she had no accounts prior to 1957 or after 1957. According to the petitioner, the Inspector of Police, Ranganataan, interrupted and objected to the question on the ground that it was a reiteration. The petitioner protested against such interruption. The enquiry officer gave his ruling against the petitioner on this objection. He stated that the question had already been put once or twice before and answered and that there was nothing objectionable about the Inspector of Police pointing It out. The third incident was when defence witness, Ramachandran, was being examined. Daring the cross-examination of this witness by the enquiry officer, as averred by the petitioner, this is what happened in his words: When the enquiry officer (was) cross-examining him he stated that the registration fees will be collected in the evening in all the years except this year and that the owners' application form is collected in the morning in 1957 and the registration fees is collected in the evening when the licence, plates and chalans were issued. For that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (enquiry officer.) has remarked that no one is going to believe that and why you people are coming and telling lies. For that the witness, Ramachandran, had stated (that he had stated what had happened. For that the C. I. D. Inspector who was also present threatened my witness saying : ' shut up- don't talk (in Tamil)' and threatening the witness not to tell the fact.