N PANDIYARAJAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE; DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MADURAI RANGE; SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Grade I Police Constable, joined the police department as Grade-II Police Constable Armed Reserve, (Madurai Rural) on 25.05.1988. He was promoted as Grade-I Constable in the year 2000. According to the petitioner, though he ought to have been promoted as head constable in the year 2004 by reason of punishment rolls, which is challenged in this Writ Petition, he was not promoted. It is stated in the petition that on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Police, Silaiman Circle, Madurai District and on the basis of the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupparankundram Sub Division, Madurai, charge memo was issued to the petitioner under Rule 3(A) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 on 08.10.2004. The gravaman of the first charge is that the petitioner being employed in the police Department, which is known for its discipline and good conduct and having married and father of two children, the petitioner from 24.07.2002 was having illicit intimacy with Selvi. Santhakumari, who is employed in the Karuppayurani Police Station as Sub-Inspector and thereby brought disrepute to the Department. The second charge is that on 21.07.2003 at about 3 p.m. while the said Selvi. Santhakumari, Sub Inspector of Police, Karuppayurani Police Station was in the station, the petitioner came in a two wheeler and went into the station and slapped the woman Sub Inspector. On the basis of the above two charges, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation and thereafter the Superintendent of Police passed an order of punishment by his order dated 08.10.2004, awarded the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect by SP/m Dv on 08.10.2004 for the delinquency, namely, having illicit intimacy with Selvi. Santhakumari, Woman Sub Inspector of Police and brought disrepute to the Department. So far as second charge, namely, the slapping of the woman Sub-Inspector on 21.07.2003 at 3.00 p.m. is concerned, it is stated in the order dated 08.10.2004, that the enquiry on that day revealed that the petitioner along with HC 223 was on investigation duty in Crime No. 5 of 2003 on the file of the CCIWCID, Madurai, from 10.00 a.m. and the GD entries also revealed that the petitioner was not present in the Head Quarters from 10 hrs on that day. Nevertheless, as per the order of punishment, the postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect was made for the act of having illicit intimacy with Selvi. Santhakumari, Woman Sub-Inspector. It is seen from the order of punishment that no punishment was awarded in respect of charge No. 2.

(2.) The petitioner filed statutory appeal to the second respondent and the second respondent by his order dated 27.08.2005 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant has not brought any fresh point for consideration and the punishment is commensurate with the nature of delinquency committed by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed Review Application before the first respondent and the first respondent also dismissed the Review Application holding that the charge against the delinquent is rightly proved in the enquiry and the punishment awarded is also apt by his order dated 08.04.2006. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ is filed.

(3.) Mr. Dhilipkumar, the learned Counsel vehemently contended that the order of the third respondent dated 08.10.2004 is illegal as there was no proof adduced against the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, the third respondent on the basis of the statement made by the Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupparankundram Sub Division, which were obtained behind the back of the petitioner, passed the order of punishment. He further developed his argument stating that even in the impugned order dated 08.10.2004, the third respondent made it clear that there are no corroborative evidence to strengthen the delinquency of illicit intimacy of the delinquent with the Sub-Inspector of Police substantiating report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he passed the order taking into the probabilities of giving two adverse notice by the delinquent in the current affair. He, therefore, submitted in respect of the first charge namely, illicit intimacy, even according to the third respondent, there was no material to prove the same and in respect of the second charge it is proved by the records that on 21.07.2003, the petitioner was on duty along with HC 223 in connection with the investigation in CCIWCID, Madurai in respect of Crime No. 5 of 2003 and therefore, the third respondent erred in holding that the charges are proved and the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in , the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, 2009 2 SCC 570 and submitted that as per the said judgment, the order of the third respondent cannot be sustained and hence the order is liable to be set aside.