V SUBRAMANIAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Airport Security, Meenambakkam. A charge memo under Rule 3 (b) was framed against the petitioner containing three charges. THE first charge was that the petitioner received cash of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant K. Manivannan to register a case in Ambattur PS Crime No. 1706 of 2004 under Section 380 of IPC on 26.08.1994. THE second charge was in respect of gross negligence of duty in not registering a case under Section 182 of Cr.P.C. for seizure of Hero Honda Motor Cycle and handing over to Ashok Nagar Police Station for showing recovery in Ashok Nagar P.S. Cr.No. 213 of 1995 under Section 457 & 380 IPC registered on 23.02.1995. THE third charge relates to gross neglect of duty in not registering a cycle accident case occurred on 19.01.1995 and registering the case on 08.03.1995 in Ambattur P.S. Cr.No. 187 of 1995 under Section 279 & 377 IPC after a lapse of 48 days and failure to register a robbery case on 07.03.1995 on the report given by one Muthukrishnan.

(2.) THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, Poonamallee Sub-Division was appointed as an enquiry officer, who, after conducting enquiry found that the petitioner was guilty of the first misconduct. With reference to second and third charges, not guilty report was furnished. THE Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpet Range, accepting the report of the enquiry officer ordered for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service from the date of the order namely 15.04.1997. THE petitioner filed statutory appeal to the first respondent. THE first respondent, gave the benefit of doubt to the petitioner with reference to demand of Rs.1,000/- as bribe for registering a case under Section 380 of IPC on the ground that there was an enormous delay in making such allegations as the delay was one year and there was no corroborating evidence to support receipt of money. With reference to delay in registering the FIR on the allegation of theft, there was 45 days of delay and the reason adduced by the petitioner was not acceptable to the appellate authority and therefore, in view of the same and on considering the fact that the petitioner had put in long number of years of service namely 28 years and the family circumstance of having three children, one sister and aged mother and the petitioner being the sole bread winner, the appellate authority was convinced that the order of compulsory retirement as penalty was excessive and therefore taking into account of the said circumstances modified the punishment into one of reduction in time scale of pay by four stages for four years with cumulative effect. THE petitioner challenged the said modified punishment before the Tribunal. On notice from the Tribunal, the second respondent filed a reply affidavit dated 31.03.1999. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 24033 of 2006.

(3.) MR. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by four stages with cumulative causes great hardship to the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. This is not a case of no evidence. On the contrary, the appellate authority, though gave benefit of doubt with reference to acceptance of Rs.1,000/- as bribe for registering the criminal case under Section 380 of IPC, yet found there was inordinate delay in registering an FIR.