S. Murugananth (Deceased) M. Nirmala devi vs Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police Range

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner was worked as a Grade I Police Constable in the Tirunelveli District. He has filed O.A. No. 6569 of 2000

challenging the order dated 05.05.2000 passed by the first Respondent and confirmed by the second Respondent, vide order, dated 04.08.2000.

By the impugned orders, the original writ Petitioner was dismissed from service for proving misconduct. The period of suspension from

01.09.1999 to 05.05.2000 was treated to be as a mere suspension.

Original Application filed by the Petitioner before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 6569 of 2000 was admitted by the Tribunal on 07.09.2000. On

notice from the Tribunal, the first Respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 30.10.2000. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood

transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 961 of 2007, during the pendency of these proceedings.

It is stated that the original Petitioner expired on 20.12.2005 and his wife, M. Nirmaladevi, filed M.P. No. 1 of 2008 before this Court and has

come on record to pursue the case.

The charge against the Petitioner was that he tried to compel one Pitchiah Nadar, to stop collection of donations from some Thevar Community

People for the temple festival to be held in Ayyapuram Village and when Pitchaiah Nadar continued the collection, he assaulted the said Pichai

Nadar on 01.08.1999 and involved himself in a criminal case for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) read with 307 IPC. A

Criminal case was registered in Crime No. 667 of 1999 and the same was tried by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thenkasi, in S.C. No.

708 of 2000. It transpires that finally the Petitioner was convicted in the criminal case being accused No. 1. Vide judgment, dated 20.07.2005, the

Sessions Court found that the charge levelled against the Petitioner was proved. During the trial, the Sessions Judge, found that there was no

ingredients made out for the offence u/s 307 IPC, but found the Petitioner under guilty for the offence u/s 324 IPC and therefore imposed him the

conviction on that account and the penalty was two years Simple Imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Likewise for the proved

offence u/s 323 IPC, he was imposed with a punishment of one year Simple Imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

It is now stated that immediately within five months after the conviction, the Petitioner died. But in so far as the Department is concerned,

notwithstanding the criminal case, the Department enquiry proceeded in respect of those charges and it was found that in the oral enquiry held nine

witnesses were examined as P. Ws.1 to 9 and the evidence pointed out that the Petitioner was guilty of both these charges and therefore, agreeing

with the report of the enquiry officer, the first Respondent found that nine witnesses together with the eleven documents showed that the Petitioner

was guilty of the charges and since the charges were grave in nature, it requires a maximum punishment and accordingly, the punishment was

imposed.

The original Petitioner filed an appeal before the second Respondent, the second Respondent considered the remarks raised by the Petitioner

and found that the Petitioner''s action has created a communal hatred in the village and keeping such disgruntled elements in force will spoil the

image of the police force and the society at large and therefore, the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of miscarriage committed by

him.

Though Mrs. Sudha Ravi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, stated that the original Petitioner has served for a long number of years

and since he is no more, this Court may exercise discretionary powers to convert the dismissal into one of compulsory retirement, so that the

Petitioner''s family / impleaded Petitioner can get pension. For this purpose, the learned Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, an

unreported order of this Court reported in K. Periyasamy v. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai and two Ors. in W.P.

(MD) No. 4024 of 2007, dated 01.10.2007. In the said case, the charges levelled against the Petitioner therein / policeman was that he collected

mamool from TASMAC Shop and for that purpose, he was dismissed, after 29 years of service. While interfering with the penalty, this Court

found that the punishment imposed on him was disproportionate and considering the sufferings, the penalty was modified.

But, in the present case, not only the Petitioner was proceeded with departmental enquiry, but also with a criminal case, where he has been

imposed with a sentence of imprisonment. Even before serving the same, he passed away and secondly, the second Respondent / Deputy

Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, has recorded in his findings that the Petitioner has created communal hatred among the villagers and

keeping such disgruntled person in police force will spoil the image of the police force and the society at large and the dismissal alone, can save the

image of the police.

In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to modify the penalty, as such. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India should be exercised only in the extraordinary circumstances of the case and not in a case of this nature.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out in this writ petition. Hence, the above writ petition

stands dismissed. No costs.