Partly allowed

V.S. Subbaiyah, v. the Dy. Commissioner of Police

Madras HC19 Feb 2019WP/20762/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a petitioner against the quashing of an appellate order rejecting his appeal regarding misconduct for subletting police quarters. The Court held the appellate order was non-speaking and violated Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. It quashed the order and remanded the matter with liberty to raise fresh grounds.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 15.02.2005 by the Joint Commissioner of Police. Remand the matter to him for fresh consideration upon receipt of fresh grounds within three months. Liberty to raise fresh gro

V.S. Subbaiyah, Vs the Dy. Commissioner of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.02.2019

¶2

CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH WP. No.20762 of 2005

V.S.Subbaiyan

..Petitioner

1.The Dy. Commissioner of Police Flower Bazaar District, Chennai.

¶8

2.The Joint Commissioner of Police (North), Chennai City Police, Chennai. ..Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in P.R.No.140/P.R.II(2)/03 dated 16.10.2004 and Rc.No.410/105244/PR.II(2)/04 dated 15.02.2005 respectively and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Alagu Goutham For Respondents: Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad Additional Government Pleader ORDER

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records in connection with the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in P.R.No.140/P.R.II(2)/03 dated 16.10.2004 and Rc.No.410/105244/PR.II(2)/04, dated 15.02.2005 respectively and quash the same

¶12

The charge against the petitioner is that he had indulged in the gross misconduct of subletting the Nariyankadu Police Quarters No.G/13 allotted to him and he was not actually staying with his family members, thereby, violating the terms and conditions of the allotment.

¶13

According to the respondents, when they had conducted enquiry, they had found some thirds persons were occupying the quarters, which according to the petitioner is his family members. The enquiry officer had found that the charges against the petitioner were proved. As against the original order, an appeal came to be preferred by the petitioner before the second

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

respondent, wherein, the petitioner herein had raised several grounds to substantiate that he had not let out his house to any third party. Apart from the same, he had also raised specific ground stating that the disciplinary authority had come to wrong conclusion that the delinquency has been proved without any material evidence. However, the second respondent herein had rejected the appeal, by an order, dated 05.02.2005, in which, he had stated that the delinquent has not raised any new grounds and that the punishment imposed is just and adequate. Apart from the above observations, there is no other findings with regard to the correctness to the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

¶16

The order of the second respondent / appellate authority is apparently non speaking order and opposed to Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal Rules) 1955, which reads as follows:

¶17

"6.(1) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any penalty specified in rule 2, the appellate authority shall consider--

¶18

(a) Whether the facts on which the order was based have been established;

¶19

(b) Whether the facts established afford sufficient ground for taking action; and

¶20

¶21

(i) confirming, enhancing, reducing, or setting aside the penalty; or

¶22

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which

¶23

imposed the penalty or to any other authority which such direction, as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case:

¶24

Provided that--

¶25

(a) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposed to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (d), (e), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of rule 2 and an enquiry under sub-rule (b) of rule 3 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (c) of rule 3, itself hold such enquiry or direct that such enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (b) of rule 3 and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such enquiry and after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry, make such order as it may deem it;

¶26

(b) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the penalties specified in clauses (d), (e), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

rule 2 and an enquiry under sub-rule (b) of rule 3 has already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed to be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry, make such order as it may deem fit; and

¶29

(c) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed in any other case unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity, as far as may be in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (b) or rule 3 of making representation against such enhanced penalty.

¶30

(2) Any error or defect in the procedure followed in imposing a penalty may be disregarded by the appellate authority if such authority considers, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the error of defect was not material and has neither caused injustice to the person concerned nor affected the decision of the case."

¶31

The above Rule is self explanatory. As per the aforesaid Rule, it is the bounden duty of the Appellate Authority to consider as to whether the facts on which the original order passed, had been established and whether such established facts afford sufficient grounds for taking action as to the proportionality of the punishment.

¶32

In the instant case, the second respondent had chosen to reject the petitioner's appeal in single line, which is apparently opposed to the said Rule 6. Hence, it would be appropriate for the second respondent to take the matter for fresh consideration.

¶33

Since the matter is remitted back to the second respondent, this Court is consciously refraining from making any observations with regard to the orders passed by the Original Authority, since the issue is to be re-considered by the Appellate Authority.

¶34

In the light of the above observations, the order passed by the Appellate Authority, viz., the Joint Commissioner of Police (Noth), Chennai City Police, Chennai in RC.No.410/105244/PR.II(2)/04, dated 15.02.2005 is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Joint Commissioner of Police (Noth), Chennai City Police, Chennai / second respondent to consider the matter afresh. The petitioner is also been given liberty to raise fresh grounds before the second respondent. On receipt of such grounds, the second respondent shall consider the same after giving due opportunity

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, in any event, atleast within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such grounds.

¶37

With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶39

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pvs
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Flower Bazaar District,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner of Police
(North), Chennai City Police,
Chennai.
WP. No.20762 of 2005
nr 26/03/2019

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.S. Subbaiyah, v. the Dy. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S. Subbaiyah, v. the Dy. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Ramalakshmi Vs the Joint Commissioner of

N.Rajendran Vs the Management of Tamilnadu

D.Vedarathinam Vs Director of Elementary

P.Raman Vs Govt.of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its

M.Aruchamy Gounder Vs the District Collector

A.Perumal Vs the Chairman, Tamilnadu