Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3827 (MAD)

S. Lakshmanan v. Commissioner of Police, Salem

2017-11-16

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The charge memo issued by the first respondent in proceedings dated 03.05.2014, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner is working as Inspector of Police and on account of certain allegations, a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 was issued in proceedings PR.No.30/H1/2014 dated 03.05.2014, by the Commissioner of Police, Salem City. 3. The charges against the writ petitioner are as under: “LANGUAGE” 4. On a perusal of the charge memo, Annexure-I denotes two charges against the writ petitioner, Annexure-II states about the statement of allegations and imputation of misconduct, Annexure-III states the list of documents and Annexure-IV states about the number of witnesses. 5. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in respect of the charge memo and the charge memo contains all the details, necessary documents and the witnesses for the purpose of conducting a full fledged enquiry in respect of the allegations set out against the writ petitioner in the impugned charge memo. 6. The nature of the allegations against the writ petitioner are certainly serious warranting a full fledged enquiry by the competent authority. On reading of the allegations set out in the charge memo, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioner has exceeded his powers as Inspector of Police and acted unbecoming of a responsible government employee. However, it remains only as an allegation and it is to be proved only during the course of enquiry to be conducted by the competent authorities. Thus, it is left open to the petitioner to submit his explanations/objections in relation to the allegations and prove his innocence before the competent authorities. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly relied on the ground that a criminal case registered against the petitioner in Crime No.34 of 2011 was quashed by this Court in Criminal O.P.No.2019 of 2013 on 02.09.2014. Thus, the charge memo, which is impugned in this writ petition also to be quashed. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly relied on the ground that a criminal case registered against the petitioner in Crime No.34 of 2011 was quashed by this Court in Criminal O.P.No.2019 of 2013 on 02.09.2014. Thus, the charge memo, which is impugned in this writ petition also to be quashed. In other words, the learned counsel is of the opinion that the allegations set out in the criminal case as well as in the departmental charge memo are similar and therefore, the departmental charge memo also to be quashed since the High Court has quashed the criminal charges. 8. This Court is of the opinion that the legal principles settled in this regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Upendra Singh reported in 1994 (3) SCC 357 is unambiguous that a mere acquittal or exoneration of a public servant from the criminal case is not a bar for proceedings with departmental disciplinary proceedings. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is extracted hereunder: “6. In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Kamal v. Gopi Nath & Sons 5. The function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Kamal v. Gopi Nath & Sons 5. The Bench comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and A.M. Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle thus : (SCC p. 317, para 8) "Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself." 9. For a criminal prosecution and to convict a person under Criminal Law, a high standard of proof is required. Even the benefit of doubt could be extended in favour of accused for granting an order of acquittal. However, the departmental disciplinary proceedings stand on a different footing. Preponderance of perspectives are sufficient even to punish an employee under Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. No such strict proof is required for punishing the government employee under Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. This being the distinction drawn in this regard by the Courts, there is no reason to quash the charge memo framed against the writ petitioner under Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader also brought to the notice of this Court that the appeal was filed by the State against the order passed in Criminal O.P.No.2019 of 2013. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Special Leave Petition filed by the State was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader also brought to the notice of this Court that the appeal was filed by the State against the order passed in Criminal O.P.No.2019 of 2013. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Special Leave Petition filed by the State was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court is of the opinion that the order of quashing in Crl.O.P.No.2019 of 2013 as well as the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not much relevance in respect of the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings. In respect of the charge memo under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, this Court has to go through the circumstances, nature of the allegations set out in the affidavit since it is already clarified that quashing of the criminal charges is not a bar for proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. This being the view taken by the Court, there is no reason to quash the charge memo in this writ petition, on the ground that criminal charges are quashed. 11. On reading of the nature of the allegations set out against the petitioner, who is holding the post of Inspector of Police, this Court of an undoubted opinion that a full fledged enquiry by the competent authority is certainly required and the charge memo also provides the statement of allegations, documents and list of witnesses that are required. Such being the nature of allegations and the charge memo, this Court is not inclined to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the quashing of the criminal case is a ground for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings of the department also. 12. A charge memo can be challenged on limited grounds and a writ can be entertained only on exceptional circumstances and this Court cannot entertain this writ petition challenging the charge memo in a routine manner. A charge memo can be challenged, if the same was issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or allegations of malafides are raised or if the memo was issued in violation of statutory Rules in force. 13. Even in the case of raising the grounds of allegations of malafides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised, to be impleaded as a party respondent in his personal capacity in the writ proceedings. 13. Even in the case of raising the grounds of allegations of malafides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised, to be impleaded as a party respondent in his personal capacity in the writ proceedings. In the absence of any one of the legal grounds no writ can be entertained against the charge memo. 14. Intermittent intervention in departmental disciplinary proceedings are certainly not preferable in all circumstances. Once the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Government employee under the relevant Rules has to be allowed to be completed and the same should reach its logical conclusion. Intermittent intervention can be entertained only on exceptional circumstances, if there is a violation of statutory Rules in this regard. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition filed challenging the charge memo on the ground that the criminal proceedings is quashed, deserves no further consideration. It is left open to the writ petitioner to pursue in the departmental proceedings and prove his innocence by following the principles provided under the rules in force. 15. In this view of the matter no further adjudication in respect of the grounds raised by the petitioner on merits needs to be undertaken. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.