Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3925 (MAD)

M. Gandhidoss v. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police Tanjore Range

2009-09-30

K.CHANDRU

body2009
Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. These writ petitions arose out of O.A.Nos.3544 and 3542 of 1998 filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, they were transferred to this court and were renumbered as W.P.Nos.35848 and 35853 of 2006. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.35848 of 2006 sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in connection with the order passed by him in P.R.195/95, dated 12. 1997 and to quash the same. In W.P.No.35853 of 2006, the petitioner sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Inspector of Police based on his inclusion in the C list of Sub Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the year 1994-95 and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits at par with his junior. 4. In W.P.No.35848 of 2006, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of reprimand for his gross neglect of duty in having taken into custody a woman by name Rangammal, wife of Sekar, during the night/early morning on 22/23, February, 1994 and brought her to Orathanadu Police station in violation of the Chief Office instructions in force. The petitioner along with two other police men went on a prohibition raid on the night of 22. 94. He arrested four persons and brought them to the police station early morning. The said Rangammal was subsequently produced before the Judicial Magistrate at 10.00 AM. It was stated that while Rangammal was in custody, she was raped by the policemen and her husband Sekar consumed poison and committed suicide. This led to the road blockade by the Thennammanadu village. 5. The RDO, Thanjavur conducted an enquiry under PSO 145 and forwarded a report to the State Government. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.727, Public (Law and order) department, dated 18. 94 and directed departmental action against the petitioner. Though the RDO report by giving benefit of doubt to the charge of rape, but however held the petitioner guilty for bringing the woman to the police station in the night hours which is in violation of the Chief Office circular in FOC 18799/C.2/69, dated 26. 69. The petitioner claimed ignorance about the said circular. Though the RDO report by giving benefit of doubt to the charge of rape, but however held the petitioner guilty for bringing the woman to the police station in the night hours which is in violation of the Chief Office circular in FOC 18799/C.2/69, dated 26. 69. The petitioner claimed ignorance about the said circular. This was not believed by the enquiry office and he submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty. On the basis of the said report, the respondent passed the impugned order imposing a punishment of reprimand. It is this punishment which is under challenge in this writ petition. This court does not find any ground to interfere with the punishment especially when the same was preceded by an enquiry and in which evidence was let in. The courts power to interfere with the penalty that too of minor nature is extremely limited as held by the Supreme Court in Praveen Bhatia Vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (4) SCC 225 . Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. The petitioner filed another OA No.3542 of 1998 seeking for a direction to direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Inspector of Police based on his inclusion in the C list of Sub Inspectors fit for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police for the year 1994-95. Pending the OA, the petitioner sought for a direction to consider his name. The Tribunal issued an interim direction to include his name in the panel for promotion for the post of Police Inspector for the year 2000-01. 7. As against the said order dated 2. 2001 the respondents preferred a writ petition being W.P.No.16903 of 2001 and challenged the interim direction. However, this court by an order dated 19. 2001 dismissed the writ petition and directed the respondents to move the tribunal with a review application. 8. The respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 17. 99 resisting the claim of the petitioner for including the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion. The averments in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the reply affidavit may be usefully extracted below: "8....In Govt. Order Ms.No.727, Public (L&O-I) Department dated 17.08.94 orders were issued sequal to enquiry under PSO 145 for "Gross neglect of duty for having taken into custody of woman during night/early morning on 22/22. The averments in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the reply affidavit may be usefully extracted below: "8....In Govt. Order Ms.No.727, Public (L&O-I) Department dated 17.08.94 orders were issued sequal to enquiry under PSO 145 for "Gross neglect of duty for having taken into custody of woman during night/early morning on 22/22. 94 and brought her to the Police station in violation of instructions in Force", to deal with him in a departmental proceedings u/r 3(b) of TNOSS (D&A) Rules. Though formulated charges were not served on him on the date of promotion of his immediate junior, there was another punishment of postponement of increment for six months awarded to him on 20.06.94 for the following delinquency. "Gross neglect of duty and failure to arrest the accused Srinivasan and Kolandaiyan concerned in Papanasam P.S. Cr.No.333/93 u/s 341, 342 and 325 IPC 302 IPC reported on 27.08.93 and allowing them to surrender in the Court of J.M.Nagapattinam on 01.09.93" Though his name was included in the promotion panel inadvertently, as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.368 P&AR dated 110. 93, this punishment awarded to him was current for the panel year 1994-95. Hence he could not be promoted as Inspector from the promotion panel. 9.... it is submitted that though the punishment of Reprimand is a minor one, it is a statutory punishment which is liable for consideration to decide the eligibility of the applicant. It is further stated that the applicant was also having current punishment in P.R.308/93 at the time of drawal of C list of Sub-Inspectors of Police, fir for promotion as Inspectors of Police for 1994-95. As such the applicant is not entitled for promotion on par with his junior. 10. With regard to para in grounds © it is submitted that the applicant was having current punishment continuously besides grave charge in P.R.195/95 u/r 3(b) at the time of consideration for the drawal of C list of Sub-Inspectors of Police fit for promotion as Inspectors of Police for the years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997 98. Hence his case was passed over. 11. With regard to para in grounds (d) it is submitted that in the light of guidelines and instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.368 P & AR Department, dated 110. Hence his case was passed over. 11. With regard to para in grounds (d) it is submitted that in the light of guidelines and instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.368 P & AR Department, dated 110. 93 and Government letter No.248 P & AR (S) Department, dated 20.10.97 the overall performance of the applicant have been taken into consideration by the Range and State Promotion Board." 9. Though Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the reprimand cannot be a ground for denial of promotion as it is only a rebuke, it cannot stall the promotion, as correctly stated by the respondents that it was a statutory punishment and his overall performance was considered by the Range and State Promotion Board. 10. In this context, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. A.N. Mohanan reported in (2007) 5 SCC 425 , has held in paragraphs 9 and 10 as follows: "9.... 1. If any penalty is imposed on the government servant as a result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the criminal prosecution against him, the finding of the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon. His case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course and having regard to the penalty imposed on him.” 10. Though learned counsel for the respondent submitted that awarding of censure does not amount to awarding of penalty, the same is clearly untenable. After referring to Union of India v. K.V. Jankiramans case reported in 1991 (4) SCC 109 , the Supreme Court held in paragraph 11 as follows: 11. Awarding of censure, therefore, is a blameworthy factor. A bare reading of Para 3.1 as noted above makes the position clear that where any penalty has been imposed the findings of the sealed cover are not to be acted upon and the case for promotion may be considered by the next DPC in the normal course. 10. In the light of the above, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by the court. Hence both the writ petitions stand dismissed No costs.