P KARUPPASAMY Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was a Sub Inspector of Police was charged under rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules in P.R.17/86, for reprehensible conduct of detaining one Sekar, S/o Manniah Valikiramanickam, at Pallathur Police Station, unauthorisedly from 19.10.1989 to 01.11.1989. THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruppatthur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. THE department examined five prosecution witnesses and marked seven documents. Based on the statement of former Assistant Superintendent of Police and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted the enquiry under Police Standing Order 145, the Enquiry Officer, viz., the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruppatthur, gave a report holding the charge as proved. THE Disciplinary Authority, viz., Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, third respondent accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded a penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect. THE appeal filed by the petitioner dated 23.12.1991 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chennai, second respondent was rejected and pending disposal of the review petition dated 15.02.1993 filed before the Additional Director General of Police, Chennai, first respondent, the petitioner has filed the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, which has been subsequently transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition.

(2.) ASSAILING the above said orders, the petitioner has submitted that P.W.1, alleged victim had categorically denied that he was detained, before the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that the respondents ought not to have relied on the statement of the Assistant Superintendent of Police and the report of the Revenue Officer. The said finding arrived at by the enquiry officer based on the statement obtained behind the back of the petitioner is erroneous. He further submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary authority are based on mere assumption of facts. According to him, when the alleged defence himself had deposed that he was not detained and beaten, the same ought to have been accepted by the Enquiry Officer and consequently, the whole disciplinary proceedings, initiated on the basis of statement given by P.W.1 is vitiated and consequently the punishment awarded to the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.