The Director General Of Police v. Muthukrishnan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.09.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN W.A. No. 2324 of 2021 & C.M.P. No. 14728 of 2021 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai -4.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothkudi District, Thoothukudi.

..Appellants/Respondents Vs.

Muthukrishnan ..Respondent/Petitioner Prayer:

Writ Appeal as against the order dated 22.01.2020 passed .

Prayer in W.P. No. 15107 of 2009:

Writ Petition filed under Act 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in P.R. 95/08 dated 12.02.2009 on the file of the 3rd respondent the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in C.No. C4/AP.46/2009 dated 31.03.2009 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent in RC.No. 82982/AP.2(1)/09 dated 12.06.2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant him further promotions with all consequential benefits. For Appellants ::

Mr.K.V. Sajeev Kumar Government Counsel For Respondent ::

Mr.M.S. Soundarajan

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.) The present writ appeal has been preferred as against the order dated 22.01.2020 passed in W.P. No. 15107 of 2009. 2.

The 1st respondent, while serving as Head Constable at Vilathikulam Police Station, was issued with a show cause notice by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchendur in C. No.P.R. 95/08 dated 31.10.2008 under Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation and after enquiry, the charge against the 1st respondent was held proved and punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect was imposed. The appeal and further review petition preferred by the 1st respondent also came to be dismissed, which necessitated the 1st respondent to approach this Court by way of writ petition.

3.

Learned Single Judge, after hearing the rival submissions and after perusing the materials placed, interfered with the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that there was illegality in the conduct of enquiry proceedings as well as violation of settled procedure and violation of principles of natural justice, in as much as all the three authorities, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Director General of Police had observed in unison that " I have gone through the appeal/review petition, PR file and connected records carefully. The charge against the appellant/applicant stands amply proved. He has not putforth any fresh points for consideration" and thereafter, rejected the appeal/review by the 1st respondent.

Learned Single Judge further observed that though the 1st respondent had raised many grounds pointing out discrepancies in the enquiry as well as in the consequential order imposing punishment, there was total non-application of mind on the part of the authorities and the orders have been passed mechanically, bereft of reasons.

4.

Heard both sides.

5.

A reading of the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority dated 12.02.2009 and

31.03.2009 respectively would make it very clear that the orders are non-speaking orders. Though the finding of the Enquiry officer has been forwarded to the delinquent employee, comments have to be called for and thereafter, a detailed order has got to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Depending upon the Rules in force, it is open to the Appellate Authority either to pass a detailed order or confirm the order of the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case on hand, the learned Single Judge held that the orders passed by all the appellants are nonspeaking orders and instead of remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration, had allowed the writ petition. Hence, we are inclined to interfere and modify the order of the learned Single Judge.

6.

Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to consider it afresh in the light of the observation made supra and pass a detailed order, if he/she is so advised. Whether pendency of disciplinary proceedings is a bar for promotion or not, need to be considered by the authority in terms of Rules applicable to Police Force and thereafter, a decision shall also be taken. The punishment order which has been set aside by this Court cannot be quoted as a reason for depriving any other benefits that may be available to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner based on service Rules. The Disciplinary Authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner before passing any orders. The Disciplinary Authority is expected to take a decision within two months if he/she has decided to probe into the issue again. 7.

The writ appeal is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nv To 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai -4.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothkudi District, Thoothukudi.

+1cc to Mr.M.S.Soundararajan, Advocate Sr No.46335 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr No.47200 W.A. No. 2324 of 2021 BS (CO) PR (11/10/2021)