The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 18.8.1998 confirmed by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 10.12.1998 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. By the impugned order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner, who is working as a Police Constable, Armed Reserve, Karur is imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect on the charge of his highly reprehensible conduct in having assaulted Police Constable (P.C.No.3091) named Murugan on 24.3.1998 at 21.30 hours and caused bleeding injuries on his lips and thereby involved in Vangal Police Station Crime No.179 of 1998 under
Sections 341 and
323 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order is challenged on the ground that he was served with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules) by the first respondent on 10.4.1998 by stating the above said charge and by proceedings dated 15.4.1998, the petitioner was given seven days' time to submit his explanation to the above charge and before receiving the explanation, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer, who is the third respondent directed the petitioner to appear for oral enquiry on 21.4.1998 and therefore, there is a violation of statutory rule under Rule 3(b) of the Rules.
3. The second ground of attack is that the Enquiry Officer's finding is based on no evidence and depositions were made by prosecution witnesses by giving contradictory statements. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the charge based on the evidence given by P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.Ws.6 to 8, who deposed in favour of the petitioner. The criminal action initiated for the very same incident by Vangal Police Station was dropped on 24.4.1998 and the departmental action was initiated subsequently.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit by stating that the petitioner was working in Armed Reserve, Karur and while performing Guard Duty at the Camp Office of the Superintendent of Police, Karur on 24.3.1998 at 21.30 hours, the petitioner slapped on the cheek of P.C.3091 Murugan of Armed Reserve, Karur and caused bleeding injuries on his lips. On the complaint preferred by PC 3091 Murugan, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vangal Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.179 of 1998 under
Sections 341 and
323 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and he sent the victim to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Karur for treatment. The Medical Officer gave medical treatment, treated him as an out-patient and issued a Certificate as to that of abrasion of 1cm x 1cm over his upper lip. Since the petitioner was involved in Crime No.179 of 1998 on the file of the Vangal Police Station, he was placed under suspension with effect from 26.3.1998, by order dated 25.3.1998. For the charge memo, the petitioner has not filed any explanation and therefore, the enquiry was conducted as per Rules and Regulations. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Karur conducted the enquiry by giving full opportunity to the petitioner and held that the charge is proved on the basis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses and prosecution exhibits. The copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was supplied to the petitioner and his further written representation was also carefully considered by the Appointing Authority, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Karur. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by order dated 17.8.1998, awarded the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, which was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli Range on 10.12.1998, holding that the charge was amply proved by the Enquiry Officer based on the evidence let in by P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.Ws.6 to 8 and he has also not given any fresh points worth consideration.
5. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation within seven days. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Karur has commenced the oral enquiry on 21.4.1998 i.e. after the expiry of ten days from the date of receipt of the charge memo. The petitioner has also fully participated in the enquiry without any hesitation and therefore, there is no violation of any statutory provision.
6. From the above referred pleadings, it is to be ascertained whether the charge framed against the petitioner is proved in a manner known to law and the punishment imposed against the petitioner is proportionate to that of the gravity of the charge. It is an admitted case that for the incident of slapping the Police Constable Murugan on 24.3.1998 at 21.30 hours, a criminal case in Crime No.179 of 1998 under
Sections 341 and
323 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner and based on the registration of the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The said criminal case was closed by the Inspector of Police, Vangal Police Station and a report was sent to the Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:
" From Inspector of Police, Vangal P.S. To The Superintendent of Police, Karur.
Sub:- Vangal P.S. Cr.No.179/1998 under
Sections 341,323 IPC.
----
Respected Sir, I have perused C.D. Carefully and since the Investigating Officer, S.I. of Police, Vangal Police Station has gone on Law and Order Bandobust duty at Coimbatore for 10 days. The accused is Police Constable and to avoid unnecessary delay in the case, I am taking suomotu further investigation in this case.
The accused Kannan, Cr.I.P.C. 2948, A.R.P.C., is being dealt departmentally on the same charge under Section Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 in P.R.No.12/F/1/98, dated 9.4.1998.
Further, the nature of complaint is not so serious to proceed with criminal prosecution against the accused. Since the disciplinary action taken against the accused has been already initiated on the same charges. Criminal Prosecution on the same charges will amount to double jeopardy.
Hence, I refer the case as further action dropped.
INSPECTOR OF POLICE VANGAL."
7. From the above report of the Inspector of Police addressed to the Superintendent of Police, it is evident that only because the petitioner was dealt with departmentally on the same charge under Rule 3(b) of the Rules in P.R.No.12 of 1998, dated 9.4.1998, further action in the criminal case was dropped. It is an admitted case that the charge memo dated 9.4.1998 was issued stating as follows:
" for having slapped P.C. 3091 Murugan on 24.3.1998 at 21.30 hours and caused injury in his lips and thereby involved in Vangal P.S. Cr.No.189/1998 under
Sections 341 and
323 IPC."
The petitioner was given seven days time to submit his explanation in the charges. The fact remains that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation within seven days after receipt of the charge memo. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charge, who commenced enquiry on 21.4.1998 i.e. after the expiry of ten days from the date of receipt of the charge memo made on the petitioner. The petitioner did not submit his explanation to the charge memo or object the conducting of enquiry, which commenced on 21.4.1998. The petitioner fully participated in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and cross examined all the witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 8.
8. From the perusal of the Enquiry Officer's Report, it is evident that the fact about the slap made by the petitioner on the lips of the victim Murugan is narrated by the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.Ws.6 to 8. The Medical Certificate issued by the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Karur was also marked as Ex.P1. There is a police case about the very same incident, which was registered within ten minutes of the incident in Crime No.179 of 1998. The criminal complaint was closed not on 'mistake of fact' but on the ground that the department has already initiated action under Rule 3(b) of the Rules in P.R.No.12 of 1998, dated 9.4.1998. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are cogent with reasons and the same is accepted by the Disciplinary Authority after considering the objections filed by the petitioner with regard to the Enquiry Officer's Report. The Disciplinary Authority after going through the minutes of the Enquiry Officer's Report and considering the explanation submitted as well as the seriousness of the charge, imposed on the petitioner, the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner filed the appeal against the said order, which is also considered in the proper perspective by the Deputy General of Police, Tiruchirappalli by stating that the charge against the appellant is for having assaulted P.C.3091 Murugan on 24.3.1009 at 21.30 hours causing bleeding injuries on his lips and the same having been approved by the Enquiry Officer based on evidence, the Appellate Authority declined to interfere with the punishment imposed. Insofar as the contention that the Enquiry Officer was appointed prior to the expiry of the time given to submit the explanation, it is to be noted that Rule 3(b) of the Rules, nowhere states that the Enquiry Officer can be appointed only after the expiry of the time granted for submitting his explanation of the charge memo and after considering the explanation submitted. Rule 3(b) only contemplates framing of charge memo and the delinquent shall be required a reasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires an oral enquiry or only to be heard in person. Therefore, there is no prohibition under the Rules to appoint the Enquiry Officer after the issuance of the charge memo before getting explanation from the petitioner as per Rule 3(b) of the Rules. Further, as rightly stated in the counter affidavit, the Enquiry Officer commenced his proceedings after ten days from the date of receipt of the charge memo and the petitioner without objection participated in the enquiry and cross examined all the witnesses. No defect in the enquiry was pointed out or raised by the petitioner during the time of enquiry. Therefore, there is no procedural violation conducted by the Department in this case. The petitioner who belongs to the disciplined force has chosen to slap another Police Constable during duty hours and caused bleeding injuries on his lips and the victim was treated in the Government Head Quarters Hospital and the Certificate to that effect was also marked as Ex.P1. Such kind of high handed behaviour of the Police Constable is rightly taken note of by the Superintendent of Police as well as the Deputy Inspector General of Police and a minor punishment for withholding the increment for one year without cumulative effect was issued. There is no procedural violation nor perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer nor any excess punishment is imposed by the respondents warranting interference of the same by this Court. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
kb To
1. Deputy Inspector General of Police Trichy Range Trichy 620 001.
2. Superintendent of Police District Police Office Karur.
3. Deputy Superintendent of Police Armed Reserve Karur