Title: S. Gunasekaran Vs. The Superintendent of Police.
Decided On: September 12, 2023.
W.P.No. 18423 of 2013.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan.
Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable in Police Department on 17.05.1976 and he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable on 09.08.1980. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 19.02.1993. While he was serving as Head Constable in Avinashi Police Station, Coimbatore District, on 15.01.2002 when he was on duty, he found that the liquor shops were open and the salesmen were selling liquor. The Government of Tamil nadu has declared the said day as holiday and there was total prohibition of selling liquor in force. When the petitioner questioned about the selling of liquor, they admitted the sale of liquor. On their admission, the salesmen were brought to the police station for the purpose of taking appropriate action against them. However, the Superintendent of Police did not accept for registering case and turned the entire case against the petitioner as if he demanded illegal gratification and on their refusal, he brought the salesmen to the police station. On the said charge, the petitioner was suspended from service on 16.02.2002 and he was issued charge memo dated 07.02.2002. The disciplinary authority passed final order thereby imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service by an order dated 26.05.2005.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
There was no evidence to show that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification from the liquor shop owners. Even according to the charges, the petitioner had demanded from the liquor shop owners long back. There was no complaint immediately after the alleged demand of illegal gratification. When the liquor shop owners were caught red handedly for running the shops on holiday i.e. on Thiruvalluvar day and the salesmen who were running the liquor shops were brought to the police station by the petitioner, a new theory of demanding illegal gratification from them was put against the petitioner by the liquor shop owners. Therefore, in order to escape from the illegal opening and sale of liquor, the petitioner was charged with false charges. It is very unfortunate to state that those who opened the shops and sold liquor on a holiday were let off without any case. Whereas the person who did not commit any fault was proceeded with departmental action and major punishment was imposed on him. The petitioner being a Head Constable, has got right to enter liquor shop when it was run on holiday. Further, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is excessive, exorbitant and disproportionate to the nature of the delinquency. The disciplinary authority is duty bound to discuss the points based upon the enquiry officer’s report and explanation submitted by the petitioner. As per Rule 3 sub-class (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called as TNPSS(D&A) Rules), further representation should be considered before rendering a decision. The disciplinary authority did not even meet those grounds raised by the petitioner. Mere proving of charge is not sufficient to hold the delinquent guilty of charges. After enquiry, though the petitioner had raised so many legal issues and factual issues, none of the grounds raised by the petitioner were considered before holding that the charges have been proved against him. The appellate authority mechanically dismissed the appeal without any speaking order and it is in violation of Rule 6(3) of TNPSS(D&A) Rules. The appellate authority owes a duty to go into the merits of the charges to find out whether the facts have been established for arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of charges. The petitioner had put in more than 29 years of service and he was not served with any memo so far and no punishment was imposed against the petitioner. Therefore, the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner is excessive and it cannot be sustained. Since the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, there is no chance of reinstatement. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential service and monetary benefits. Therefore, the respondents are directed to settle all consequential service and monetary benefits to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
