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 Judgement, 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. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the second respondent, on 20.08.1999. The second respondent by an order, dated 24.09.1999, had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a Review Petition before the first respondent, on 03.11.1999. The said petition has also been rejected by the first respondent, on 31.12.1999. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that there was no medical certificate produced to prove that the petitioner was causing nuisance under the influence of liquor. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case, in C.C.No.1169 of 1997,by an order, dated 21.04.1999. No independent witnesses had been examined to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner.
5. 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.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved by the disciplinary authority. Even though the enquiry officer had stated in his enquiry report, that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved, the disciplinary authority had come to the conclusion that the charges were proved, based on the fact that there was no malafides alleged against the police officers or against the witnesses. Further, the burden of proof in criminal cases differs from the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the departmental authorities. Therefore, the acquittal in the criminal case cannot be a reason for holding that the charges against the petitioner had not been proved. Hence, he had prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of records available, it is clear that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or the reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority, in which it has been clearly stated that the burden of proof in criminal cases differs from the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the departmental authorities. Therefore, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, in C.C.No.1169 of 1997, by an order, dated 21.04.1999, cannot be a reason for holding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved by way of disciplinary proceedings. Further, sufficient opportunity had been given to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority before passing the impugned order, dated 12.08.1999, awarding the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for two years, without cumulative effect. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, that there is no sufficient cause or reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order of the respondents. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
rrg To:
1.Inspector General of Police, (Law and Order) Chennai-600 004.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of police, Head Quarters, Madurai City, Madurai