S. Murugesan vs The Director General of Police and Others

K. Chandru, J.—Heard Mr. P. Senthurpandian, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent, Director General of Police, dated 15.01.2006, who, in turn, has confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the fourth respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Police, dated 07.09.1999.

When the Writ Petition came up for hearing on 08.02.2007, notice of motion was ordered and on notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter-affidavit dated Nil (March, 2007).

The petitioner was imposed with a penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect. The reason for imposition of the penalty was that while he was escorting an accused, by name Kundu @ Karuppasamy, who was involved in a criminal case in Crime No. 295 of 1999 on the file of Tirunelveli Junction Police Station, in an auto-rickshaw, he took him to a place unauthorizedly on 11.04.1999. The petitioner was escorted the accused from the sub jail, Tirunelveli to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and the petitioner has facilitated bringing the wife of the accused, after sending a boy to her house. The statements were recorded from the wife and another relative as well as from the auto drivers. Charges under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 were framed and an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. In that enquiry, six witnesses were examined. During the enquiry, the wife and the relative of the accused as well as the auto-rickshaw drivers were examined as P. Ws.1 to 4, who turned hostile. Nevertheless the Deputy Commission of Police, the fourth respondent herein, on the basis of the testimony of P.W.5 and P.W.6 as well as the documentary evidence, found the petitioner guilty. It was on that basis, the minor penalty came to be imposed.

The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli and the same was rejected on 10.02.2000. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a review petition to the second respondent. The second respondent, on considering the review petition, while confirming the findings recorded against the petitioner, modified the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years, but however, without cumulative effect.

The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a mercy petition to the first respondent. The first respondent, on a speaking order dated 15.01.2006, rejected his mercy petition. As against this penalty order, the Writ Petition has been filed.

In the counter-affidavit, it was stated that even though the relatives of the accused went back from their statement, the statement made by P.W.5 and P.W.6 and the document in Ex.P.8 are sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the State of Tamil Nadu, etc. and Ors. v. S. Mahalingam and Ors. reported in 2005 Writ L.R. 786, would contend that in order to prove a charge, there must be independent witnesses, even though the evidence of official witnesses must be corroborated by independent witnesses.

In that case, the Court was concerned with major penalty of dismissal of Government servant for having received bribery amount. In that context, the Court was concerned about independent witnesses. The said decision cannot have any application to the facts on hand. Even though a minor penalty was imposed on the petitioner, he was dealt with the procedure for imposition of major penalty and, therefore, it cannot be said that he did not have a sufficient safe guard in the enquiry held against him. On the contrary for imposition of a minor penalty, the charges were framed under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. There was no necessity even to conduct any elaborate enquiry and it is sufficient that on receipt of explanation, the authority can impose a penalty.

In the present case, the petitioner had the benefit of an appeal, review and mercy petition before the hierarchy of officers and the reviewing authority modified the penalty by converting the penalty having a cumulative effect into non-cumulative effect.

The Supreme Court, vide judgment in Chairman and MD V.S.P. and Others Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, has held that this Court has a limited jurisdiction to go into the proportionality of punishment. A well reasoned order of the departmental authority cannot be interfered with on the basis of sympathy and sentiments. Once the formalities of an enquiry is completed and the charges are proved, the Courts ought not to have disturbed the penalty.

Further, in Praveen Bhatia Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the Supreme Court has held that judicial review of penalty is extremely limited and the Court can interfere only when the relevant factors are not taken into account.

In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.