S SUNDARAVADIVELU Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges the charge memo dated 7. 4. 2003 issued by the respondent in this writ petition.

(2.) WHILE admitting the writ petition, this Court, taking note of the rule position, granted interim stay of all the proceedings in WPMP no. 21092 of 2004 on 28. 6. 2004. Respondent filed WVMP No. 1330 of 2005 to vacate the interim stay and when the said petition came up for hearing, learned counsel on both sides agreed that the main writ petition itself can be taken up for final disposal.

(3.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows, (a) Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police by direct recruitment after selection by the Police Recruitment Board on 27. 9. 198 7 and he was promoted as Inspector of Police on 18. 8. 1998. According to the petitioner, he received 48 rewards and he is having unblemished record of service. (b) Petitioner, while working as Inspector of Police in Ambattur prohibition Wing, a raid was conducted by the him along with two Head constables by name Ravichandran and Xavier, on 13. 6. 2000 at Maduravoil, on the information received that some ante-social elements are selling illicit arrack, and during the said raid, one Ramadoss, a habitual offender was arrested at 11. 00 a. m. On 13. 6. 2000. He was brought to the station at 1. 00 p. m. and two Head Constables by name Nazer and Manohar took the accused to the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee for remand, who remanded the accused till 27. 6. 2000 from 13. 6. 2000. Subsequently, the accused was sent to the prison at Puzhal. According to the petitioner, in the remand order dated 13. 6. 2000, no complaint of ill-treatment by the Police was made by the accused. However, the accused Ramadoss died on 17. 6. 2000 at Royapettah government Hospital and as per the post mortem certificate the death was due to cardiac anoxia with multiple non-grievous injuries. (c) Petitioner further states in the affidavit that an enquiry under PSO 145 was conducted in which petitioner gave a statement that the said accused was remanded for judicial custody on 13. 6. 2000 itself, however the remand order could not be produced before the enquiry officer. In this regard a charge memo dated 7. 4. 2003 was issued to the petitioner and two Head constables Ravichandran and Xavier, alleging that on 13. 6. 2000 they arrested the accused for prohibition offence and kept the accused under Police Custody and tortured him till 15. 6. 2000 and only on 15. 6. 2000 the accused was remanded to judicial custody and he was not feeling well in the prison and died on 17. 6. 2000 and that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could not be inflicted by any other person, except by the Police. (d) The above said charge memo issued under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the charge framed by the superintendent of Police/respondent herein is without jurisdiction as he is not the competent authority to issue the charge memo. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Rule 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Police subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as amended by g. O. Ms. No. 160, Home (Pol. V) Department dated 1. 2. 1996 , in cases, where more than one member of the force are involved, the authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 2 shall be the authority in respect of the Officer, who holds the highest post and the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together. The learned counsel citing the said rule, argued that the petitioner being the Inspector of Police, the disciplinary authority can only the Deputy Inspector General of Police and therefore the impugned charge memo issued by the Superintendent of Police is in violation of Rule 4-A. (e) Apart from the said jurisdictional issue, some factual aspects were also raised in the grounds, but the same are not relevant for deciding the jurisdictional issued.