SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT VIRUDHUNAGAR Vs. J MUTHIAH SELVARAJ HEAD CONSTABLE NO 677 VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar is the petitioner. THE challenge is to the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 03.10.2001 passed in O.A.No.2721 of 1996. By the order impugned in this writ petition, the Tribunal set aside the charge memo issued to the first respondent in P.R.No.7 of 1996 dated NIL.

(2.) AT the relevant point of time, the first respondent was working as Head Constable in Alangulam Police Station. On 12.09.1994, a case in Cr.No.125 of 1994 was registered under Section 366 I.P.C. The first respondent was entrusted with the task of securing the accused and the kidnapped girl. The girl and the accused were handed over to the first respondent by the Ambattur Estate Police on 14.09.1994 evening. After taking into custody the accused and the girl, the first respondent ought to have brought them straight to Alangulam Police Station and handed over them to the Sub Inspector of Police for further investigation. But the first respondent alleged to have kept them in a house belonging to one Thiru Balasubramaniam the whole of night of 14.09.1994 and then took them to a lodge called Cauvery Lodge on 15.09.1994. Further under the guise of enquiring the girl, the first respondent molested the girl, while as per the Rules, the first respondent ought to have secured the presence of a lady constable. Thereafter, the girl was brought to Alangulam Police Station only on 16.09.1994. It is for the above said incident, the impugned charge memo came to be issued in P.R.No.7 of 1996. As the victim girl, namely Uma, preferred a complaint against the first respondent, a criminal case was lodged before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in C.C.No.217 of 1996. In order to appreciate the allegations against the first respondent, it will be appropriate to extract the statement of the victim Uma, which is to the following effect:

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on a perusal of the material papers placed before us, we are of the view that the conclusion of the Tribunal in having set aside the charge memo on the sole ground that the criminal case has ended in acquittal cannot be accepted. In this context, it will be worthwhile to refer to the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (3) CTC 211 [NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. vs. NOIDA and others]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to the earlier decisions reported in 2004 (7) SCC 442 [Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. T.Srinivas], 2005(10)SCC 471 [Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Sarvesh Berry], 2006(6)SCC 366 [Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. vs. Mansaram Nainwal], 1997(2)SCC 699 [Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others], 1996(6)SCC 417 [State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena and others], 1999(3)SCC 679 [Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.] has laid down the ratio in paragraph Nos.16 and 22 of its order, which reads as under: