VEERA HANUMANTHA SEKAR Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No,23 of 2001 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent passed in C.No.AP III(i)/645/277923/99 dated 31.12.1999 confirming the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.D1(2)/THA.Pa.24/99 dated 24.09.1999 and who inturn confirmed the order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.D1(2)/Tha.Pa/24/99 dated 12.08.1999 and quash the same.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the respondents imposing the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect, on the petitioner, based on the charges of causing nuisance under the influence of alcohol.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner, while he was working as a Grade-II Constable, Armed Reserve, Police Control Room, Madurai City, Madurai, there was a quarrel amongst some police constables near the control room. However, a case had been registered against the petitioner in E-1, Police Station, under Section 75 of Madras City Police Act, in Cr.No,2651/1995. The said case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate No,6, Madurai, in C.C.No.1169 of 1997 and the petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate by his Judgment, dated 21.04.1999. Based on the criminal case filed against the petitioner, on 28.11.1995, the petitioner had been suspended from service, on 30.11.1995. While so, the 3rd respondent had initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and issued a charge memo, on 14.03.1999, under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Control Rules) framing a charge that on 28.11.1995, at 0.15 A.M., the petitioner was causing nuisance to public under the influence of liquor. The enquiry officer has submitted the report stating that the charges against the petitioner had not been proved. However, the 3rd respondent, not agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer, had issued a charge memo, dated 18.06.1999, stating that the charges were proved against the petitioner, since witnesses were given by Government Servant and since there was no previous enmity between the petitioner and the witnesses. Further, it had also been stated that in the disciplinary proceedings a higher standard of proof is not necessary.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that there was no complaint from the members of the public, based on which, the charges had been levelled against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the respondents by their impugned orders, cannot be sustained.