Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1938 (MAD)

N. Mohan v. Superintendent of Police, Perambalur

2012-04-17

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner joined the police service as Grade II Constable on 17.1.1986 and was promoted as Grade-I Constable in the year 1999. The petitioner while working at Vikkiramangalam Police Station, was placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District. The petitioner was required to be present at the headquarters at Perambalur. 2. The petitioner was asked to report to the Superintendent of Police on 19.3.1999, but, the petitioner failed to appear before the Superintendent of Police. 3. The petitioner was served with a charge memo, on the charge that the petitioner had failed to appear before the Superintendent of Police on 19th of March 1999, that the petitioner left headquarters without permission on 18th of March 1999. 4. The enquiry officer was appointed to hold the enquiry, wherein the witness examined by the prosecution, stated that the notice of the Superintendent of Police asking the petitioner to appear on 19th of March 1999 was served on the petitioner on 20th of March 1999. 5. The evidence was also led to show, that the notice though issued on 18.3.1999, it was served only on 20.3.1999. The enquiry officer on appreciation of the evidence held the petitioner guilty of having left the headquarters without permission on 18th March 1999. 6. The competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner did not avail the statutory remedy of appeal but moved the Learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, with an application to exempt the petitioner from availing the remedy of appeal and other statutory remedies. 7. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse, being contrary to the evidence led before the enquiry officer. In the evidence it was proved that the notice was issued on 18.3.1999 but was served only on 20.3.1999 therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent of Police on 19th March 1999. 8. It is also the stand of the petitioner, that he appeared in the office of the Superintendent of Police on 20.3.2011, but the Superintendent of Police is not available on that date, and therefore, he could not report to him. 9. 8. It is also the stand of the petitioner, that he appeared in the office of the Superintendent of Police on 20.3.2011, but the Superintendent of Police is not available on that date, and therefore, he could not report to him. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that the findings of the enquiry officer holding charge to be proved is perverse therefore unsustainable in law. Consequently the impugned order also can not stand the test of legal order. 10. The writ petitioner is opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, on the ground that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not only of non appearance before the Superintendent of Police on 19th of March 1999, but also that petitioner left the headquarters without permission on 18th of March 1999. Therefore, notice for appearance could not be served on 18th and was thus served on 20th March 1999. It is the contention of the Additional Government Pleader that the very fact that notice was served two days after issuance shows that petitioner was absent from the headquarters without permission. This act was in violation of the rules, as the person under suspension is to remain at the headquarters. 11. The petitioner was held guilty of the charge of absence from the headquarters without permission. 12. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner, that he was not in the headquarters on 18.3.1999. 13. The only stand is that the charge for non appearance of the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police was not proved. 14. The enquiry officer was right in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of leaving the headquarters without permission and held the charge proved. 15. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, which cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh to the charge proved. 16. It may also be noticed that inspite of two opportunities having been given to the petitioner, he has failed to file translated copies of Tamil documents. 17. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise his evidence, to come to a different conclusion that of the enquiry officer, unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case part of charge that petitioner absented from headquarters without permission was not even disputed. No merit. 17. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise his evidence, to come to a different conclusion that of the enquiry officer, unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case part of charge that petitioner absented from headquarters without permission was not even disputed. No merit. Dismissed. No costs.