V. MUTHUVEERAPPAN Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the impugned charge-memo in P.R/Traffic/P.R.(52)/215, approved on 11.06.2015, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, (3rd respondent) under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, in which the petitioner was slapped with the following charges (Cat.II) ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(2.) The petitioner was enlisted as Grade-II Police Constable on 27.02.1986 and after finding his satisfactory service, he was given promotion to the post of Head Constable and subsequently, promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 15.03.2005. While serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, he was issued with the aforementioned charge-memo, signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Chennai (3rd respondent herein), alleging that in the promotion board conducted for drawing 'C' list of Head Constables fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police (Cat.II) for the year 2004, he has tampered the grading in the Annual Confidential Records (ACR) towards oveall performance as 'outstanding' in the Annual Confidential Report submitted for the preceding five years i.e, 1999-2004. It has been further alleged that for the promotion Board conducted for the year 2003, he has secured 20.10 mark for Annual Confidential Report. It is stated that even if the full mark of 6 is awarded for the last year, his total mark would not have been more than 26.10 for the Promotion Board conducted for the year 2004; whereas his marks were entered as 27.60. On this basis, it was alleged that to gain more marks in the Promotion Board, bogus ACR with the grading for overall performance as 'Outstanding' was prepared by him and submitted for the Board. In the light of the above said first charge, it has been further alleged that he has violated Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Officer's Conduct Rules, 1964.

(3.) Assailing the impugned charge-memo, it has been contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that when the personal files of the Police Personnel are all confidential in nature and they are maintained and kept in the personal safe custody of the officers according to the ranks, in the case of the petitioner, his ACR files were with the custody of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Chennai. When the ACRs are being prepared for every year and filed in the personal files, the petitioner cannot have any personal access to handle his personal file. Moreover, the ACRs are being prepared every year on 31st March of the year, by the Reporting Officer. For Head Constables in the armed Reserve, the Reporting Officer is Inspector of Police of the respective company and he makes his remarks in all the columns of the ACR. In the same report, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Reviewing Officer) adds his remarks and forward the report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, who being the accepting officer. The Accepting Officer adds his remarks in the same report and send the reports to the next superior officer for perusal. In this process, there is no chance for the petitioner to have the access of the Annual Confidential Report. Therefore, the allegation made against the petitioner in the impugned charge-memo that he has tampered the personal files is beyond the scope of any imagination.