S.KARTHIKEYAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the first respondent dated 26.07.2018, in and by which, the review petition filed by the petitioner questioning the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him by the authorities on the ground that his improper handling of the investigation of the murder of one Vignesh which was registered as Crime No.155 of 2010 at Ammapettai Police Station.

(2.) According to the petitioner, on registration of the First Information Report in Crime No.155 of 2010, he had enquired several people in the village including one Krishnamoorthy, Son of Vembaiyan on various dates between 17.05.2010 and 30.05.2010. The said Krishnamoorthy who was subjected to enquiry by the petitioner in his capacity as Inspector of Police had committed suicide by consuming poison on 31.05.2010. The Revenue Divisional Officer has submitted a report on 16.06.2011 regarding the circumstances under which the said Krishnamoorthy had committed suicide. It appears that a complaint was forwarded to the National Human Rights Commission in connection with the death of the said Krishnamoorthy, terming it as a death in police custody. The National Human Rights Commission had issued a notice to the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu on 28th March 2013 requiring the Chief Secretary to show cause as to why the Commission should not recommend monetary relief to the family of the deceased Krishnamoorthy within a period of six weeks. In furtherance to the said show cause notice, a report was called for from the District Collector, Thanjavur by the Principal Secretary to the Government by proceedings dated 25.04.2013. On 19.05.2013, the District Collector, Thanjavur submitted his report. Pursuant to the same, the National Human Rights Commission passed an order on 21st January 2014, directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the family of the deceased Krishnamoorthy. The said order was complied with by the Government. After complying with the said order, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No. 352, Public (Law and Order-A) Department, dated 13.05.2014 requiring the third respondent to take action against the petitioner, in view of the findings recorded by the National Human Rights Commission. Pursuant to the said Government Order, a memorandum was issued by the third respondent on 02.06.2014 directing the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, the then Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station. Pursuant to the same, the Enquiry Officer namely, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, had conducted an enquiry and imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect on 18.05.2016. The said order was also implemented by the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur by his proceedings dated 25.03.2016. Aggrieved by the said imposition of punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 to the Additional Director General of Police, Chennai, namely, the fourth respondent. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Government passed an order for recovery of the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- paid as per directions of the National Human Rights Commission from the petitioner in 100 monthly equal installments of Rs.5,000/- each. The Additional Director General of Police, namely, the fourth respondent, by his proceedings in R.C.No.Con.2(1)/80547/2014, dated 01.09.2016, after considering the entire records of the disciplinary proceedings reduced the punishment to "Censure deferred by six months". Since the petitioner did not come to any adverse notice during the said period of punishment of censure, the Superintendent of Police by his proceedings dated 16.12.2016 cancelled the punishment of "deferred censure". Subsequently, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government issued a show cause notice dated 09.10.2017 to the petitioner proposing to enhance the punishment invoking the power of suo motu revision conferred under Rule 15(A) (1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the first respondent namely, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (POL-IV), Department had passed the present impugned order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. It is, this order, that is put to challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.