K. Krishnamoorthy vs State of Tamil Nadu, The District Collector and The Revenue Divisional Officer

T. Raja, J.—These two writ petitions have been filed by Mr. K. Krishnamoorthy and Mr. A. Godwin Jagadeeshkumar challenging the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 12, Public (Law and Order-A) Department dated 7.1.2009 passed by the first respondent, the Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-A) Department, Chennai seeking to initiate stern disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the petitioners. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before this Court that when the first respondent had issued G.O.Ms. No. 12, Public (Law & Order-A) Department dated 7.1.2009, to initiate stern disciplinary and criminal proceedings against nine police personnel including the petitioners, on the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, the third respondent herein, dated 31.1.2007, the same was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 2541 of 2010 by one Mr. N. Manivannan and this Court, by order dated 25.7.2012, after considering the validity of the said Government Order and accepting the case of the petitioner therein viz., Mr. N. Manivannan, who was similarly placed like that of the petitioners herein, set aside the impugned Government Order. Subsequently, one another writ petition filed by six police personnel viz., Balasundaram, Udhayasooriyan, Velappan, Dharmaraj, Bayas Mohan and Krishnan in W.P. (MD) No. 14136 of 2009 was also allowed, by order dated 1.4.2013, following the order dated 25.7.2012 passed in W.P. No. 2541 of 2010. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that when the present impugned order in G.O.Ms. No. 12 dated 7.1.2009 was repeatedly quashed by this Court as mentioned above, the present writ petitions also are to be allowed by virtue of the earlier orders mentioned above.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, by relying upon the counter affidavit, submitted that one Mr. J. Satheesh Kumar and his mother had given petitions dated 7.3.2006 before the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai stating that the said Mr. Satheesh Kumar was arrested on 26.2.2006 without any reason and he was tortured by the police personnel and beaten up inside the lockup including the petitioners, therefore, the third respondent brought the same to the notice of the second respondent-District Collector, Madurai, who in turn ordered for a Magisterial enquiry under Police Standing Order 151 vide the proceedings dated 17.4.2006 by the third respondent. Accordingly, the third respondent conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report dated 31.1.2007 recommending criminal action against all the police personnel including the petitioners for their alleged excess and also for tampering and fabricating records with an intention to cause injury to the said Mr. Satheesh Kumar. Thereafter, based on the second enquiry ordered by the second respondent, the third respondent again conducted another enquiry and submitted his report dated 23.5.2007 recommending initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners for the serious lapse of causing injury while keeping Mr. Satheesh Kumar under the police custody and departmental proceedings against the seven other police personnel. Based on the said report only, the first respondent has issued the impugned order directing initiation of stern disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the nine police personnel including the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed for no interference with the impugned order.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

The impugned order in G.O.Ms. No. 12 dated 7.1.2009 passed by the first respondent-Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-A) Department, Chennai directed the Director General of Police to initiate stern disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the nine police officers including the petitioners herein. When a criminal complaint given by one Mr. Satheesh Kumar is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai in C.C. No. 165 of 2008, the first respondent, acting on the report filed by the third respondent, should not have ordered for disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners, since the same will prejudice the right of the petitioners before the criminal Court. Moreover, when one Manivannan filed W.P. No. 2541 of 2010 challenging the G.O.Ms. No. 12, Public (Law & Order-A) Department dated 7.1.2009, this Court, by order dated 25.7.2012, allowed the writ petition holding that the said Manivannan had not involved in the occurrence alleged to have taken place. Similarly, when seven other persons filed W.P. (MD) No. 14136 of 2009, the Madurai Bench of this Court, by order dated 1.4.2013, allowed the writ petition, following the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2541 of 2010 dated 25.7.2012. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, the order passed in the above said writ petitions cannot be made applicable to the petitioners, for the reason that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 23.5.2007 also clearly shows that these two petitioners Mr. K. Krishnamoorthy and Mr. A. Godwin Jagadeeshkumar are found to be involved in the incident attacking Mr. Satheesh Kumar and causing extensive injuries on him. The relevant portion of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is extracted below:-

Thiru. Godwin Jagadeeshkumar was the IO and SHO of Teppakulam Police Station. He along with Krishnamurthy, Driver was alleged to have attacked the Satheeshkumar and caused extensive injuries on his person. The independent testimony of Thiru. Pichaipandi who was working in the Barber shop near Ganesh Theatre, Madurai, Thiru Karuppathevar, who came to Aravind Hospital for eye check up, and Selvi Beevi who have witnessed the incident involving the police personnel around 5 PM on 25.2.2006 confirmed that the Inspector of Police along with Krishnamurthy, a Police Constable used as Driver attacked the said Satheeshkumar....

I submit that the two officials namely Thiru. Godwin Jagadeeshkumar, the Inspector of Police and Thiru. Krishnamoorthy, Head Constable cum Driver. It is no doubt that they have acted in excess of the authority conferred on them. It may have been due to the attitude of the accused, Thiru Satheeshkumar which would have been acted as a contributory factor. But the fact remains that as per the version of the independent witnesses and the medical professionals, both in the Government Rajaji Hospital and in the Apollo Hospital, the police have exceeded the powers authority conferred on them which resulted in causing injuries on Thiru Satheesh Kumar.....It goes without saying that the two police officials were squarely responsible for this unhappy incident which attracted adverse criticism in the press as well as hue and cry made by the public as well. It is inevitable that they should be brought to book. Hence I recommend that deterrent departmental action may be initiated against the aforesaid two officials for the serious lapse of causing injury while keeping Thiru Satheesh Kumar under the police custody...

In view of the above report showing that there are sufficient evidence about the involvement of the petitioners in the attack inflicted against one Mr. Satheesh Kumar, this Court is not able to agree with the prayer made by the petitioners, since the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions cannot be made applicable to them. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. Consequently, interim stay stands vacated and the M.P. Nos. 2 of 2009 are also dismissed. No costs.