Allowed

R.S.Kumar v. the Director General of Police

Madras HC7 Jan 2022WP(MD)/22029/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order of punishment imposed on a Head Constable. The Court quashed the impugned orders because the investigating authorities deviated from an enquiry report that found the accusations against the petitioner unproved, without providing adequate justification.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders confirming the punishment were quashed and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

R.S.Kumar Vs the Director General of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.22029 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.01.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.22029 of 2018 and WMP (MD) No. 19983 of 2018

¶7

R. S. Kumar Head Constable 334 Pasupathi Palayam Police Station, Karur District ...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Director General of Police,

¶10

Chennai – 600 004.

¶11

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Karur District. …..Respondent

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Rc.No.049781/AP.IV(1)/2017 dated 22.12.2017 confirming the impugned order of the 4^th respondent in T.P.No.44/A4/2016 dated 20.08.2016 quash the same and pass orders.

¶15

For Petitioner : Ms. K.Muthu Kavitha for M/s. K. Muthu Ganesa Pandian

¶16

For Respondents : Mr. K.S. Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Upon hearing Mr. K. Muthu Ganesa Pandian for the Petitioner and Mr. Selvaganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, I had passed the following order on13.12.2021:

¶19

'The challenge is to an order of imposition of punishment upon a Head-Constable on the ground https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/5

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.22029 of 2018

¶22

that he had behaved inappropriately with one Santhiya.

¶23

2.No complaint has been filed by Santhiya or by her family members. Five witnesses have been enquired, four of whom initially deposed against the petitioner. Subsequently, Witness No.1, who was the Ex-President of the Village Panchayat conceded to the position that he had no direct knowledge of the alleged incident, as did witness No.2.

¶24

3.Witness No.3, who is the Inspector of Police, while maintaining his original position, admitted that there was no independent complaint as against the petitioner.

¶25

4.Witness No.4, who is mother-in-law of Santhiya, in cross-examination conceded to the position that though she did not know how to read or write Tamil, had signed the statement written in Tamil, as directed by Witness No.3, Inspector of Police. She also conceded to the position that she was not present in the place of alleged occurrence at the relevant point in time and had no direct knowledge of the incident.

¶26

5.That apart, the enquiry report appears to have been in favour of the petitioner, but has been deviated from by the authorities. Let a copy of the enquiry report be placed on file.

¶27

6.List on 23.12.2021 .'

¶28

A copy of the enquiry report has also been placed on record now by learned Additional Government Pleader wherein after a very detailed and thorough examination of the incident, the enquiry officer has concluded in point 9 that the accusations as against the petitioner have no basis whatsoever and have not been proved by the respondents.

¶29

The operative portion of the report is extracted below: ' 9/jPh;khdk;

¶30

gpiHahsh; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpj;J. mtUf;F vjpuhd Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpg;ghiz. muRj; jug;g [ rhd;whshpd; rhd;Wiu. muRj;jug;g [ rhd;whtz';fs; kw;Wk; gpiHahshpd; rkhjhd tpsf;fk; Mfpatw;iw ftdKld; ghprPyid bra;J. mjd; cz;ikapd; mog;gilapy; fPH;fz;lthW jPh;khdk; bra;fpnwd;/

¶31

gpiHahsh; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;lhdJ. fle;j 01/09/2014 k; njjp jpUg;g [dthry; fhty; ruf tpehafh; rpiyfiug;g [ Ch;ty ghJfhg;g [g ; gzpapy; , Ue;jth; Ch;tyj;ij ntof;if ghh;f;f te;j nrk';nfhl;il fpuhkj;ijr; nrh;e;j uh$;Fkhh; kidtp re;jpah vd;gthplk; mtiu gw;wpa KG tpgu';fis bjhpe;J bfhz;L 04/06/2014 k; njjp mtuJ tPl;ow;F brd;W

¶32

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

¶33

2/5

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.22029 of 2018

¶35

me;j bgz;zplk; Mirthh;j;ijfis Twp jtwhf elf;f Kaw;rp bra;J fhty;Jiwapy; bghWg;g [ kpf;f gjtpapy; gzp[g [hpa [k ; gpiHahsh; fhty;Jiwf;F fs';fk; tpistpf;Fk; tifapy; ele;J bfhz;l XG';fPdkhd bray; g[hpe;jik vd;gjhFk;.

¶36

gpiHahsUf;F vjpuhd Fw;wr;rhl;L bjhlh;ghf Ie;J muR jug;g [ rhl;rpfs; tprhuiz bra;ag;gLk; mth;fs; rhl;rpaj;jpd; thapyhf Ie;J Mtz';fs; muR jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sd/ muRjug;g [ rhl;rpfspy; muRjug;g [ rhd;whsh; 1/fhspjh!; vd;gth; rk;gtj;jpw;F gpd;dh; rk;gt ,lk; brd;wnghJ uh$;Fkhh; mtuJ kidtp rj;jpah kw;Wk; rpyh; epd;Wbfhz;oUe;jjhft[k ; mt;tplj;jpy; gpiHahshh; ,y;iy vd;Wk; rhl;rpakspj;Js;shh;/ nkYk; gpiHahsh; FWf;F tprhuiz bra;J mjid cWjpg;gLj;jpa [s ;shh;/ ,e;j rhl;rpia gpwH; rhl;rpahfj;jjhd; fUjKoa [k ;/ mnj nghy; muRjug;g [ rhd;whsh; 4/ jpUkjp/ghDkjp 04/09/2014 k; njjp eilbgw;wjhf Twg;gLk; rk;gtj;ijg;gw;wp kWehs; m';F brd;wnghJ mtuJ kfd; uh$;Fkhh; Twpajd; thapyhf nfl;lwpe;Js;sjhft [k ; rhl;rpakspj;Js;shh;/ ,e;j rhl;rpia[ak; gpiHahsh; Fwf;F tprhuiz bra;J mjid cWjp bra;Js;shh;/ muRjug;gpy; rk;gtj;ij cWjp bra;tjw;fhf Fwpg;gpl;L tprhuiz bra;ag;gl;Ls;s muR rhd;whsh; 1 kw;Wk; 4 Mfpa , UtUnk nfs;tp epiy rhl;rpahf cs;sdh;/ ,t;tpU rhl;rpa';fspd; thapyhf gpiHahsh; rk;gt ,lj;jpy; ,Ue;jhuh vd;gija[k ; Fw;wr;rhl;oy; Twpa [ s ;sgo muRjug;g [ rhd;whsh; 4 ghDkjpapd; kUkfs; rj;jpah vd;gthplk; jtwhf elf;f Kw;gl;lhuh vd;gija[k ; bjspthf cWjpgLj;j ,aytpy;iy.

¶37

nkYk; muRjug;g [ rhl;rp 2 jpU/ghykndhfh; mspj;Js;s thf;FK:yk; kw;Wk; mth;jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s rhd;whtzk; Mfpait muRjug;g [ rhl;rp 1 fhspjh!; vd;gth; thapyhf nfl;lwpe;Js;sitahFk;/ ,tUk; nfs;tpepiy rhl;rpakhth;/ mnjnghy; muRjug;g [ rhd;whsh; 3/jpU ,s brHpad;. fhty; Ma;thsh; mspj;Js;s rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; mtuhy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s muRjug;g [ rhd;whtzk; 3 Mfpait rk;gtk; bjhlh;ghf 30/10/2014 k; njjpad;W nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;l tprhuizapd;nghJ ,tuhy; gjpt [ bra;ag;gl;l thf;FK:y';fis (muRjug;g [ rhd;whtzk; 1 kw;Wk; 4) mog;gilapy; mike;Js;sJ/ 04/09/2014 k; njjpad;W eilbgw;wjhf Twg;gl;Ls;s rk;gtj;jpd;nghJ gpiHahsuhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;ljhf Twg;gLk; rj;jpah kw;Wk; mutJ fzth; uh$;Fkhh; Mfpa ,Utiua[k ; neuoahf tprhuiz bra;ag;glhjjhy; ,t;tprhuiz mjpfhhpapd; rhl;rpaKk; Fw;wr;rhl;oid cWjp bra;a nghJkhdjhf ,y;iy/ nkYk; muRjug;g [ rhd;whsh; 5/jpU kfhnjtd;. fhty; Jizf;fz;fhzpg;ghsh; mspj;Js;s rhl;rpak; kw;Wk; mtuhy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s muRjug;g [ rhd;whtdk; 5 Mfpait muRjug;g [ rhd;whsh; 3 fhty; Ma;thsh; 30/10/2014 k; njjpad;W mspj;Js;s mwpf;ifapd; mog;gilapy; mikag;bgw;Ws;sJ/ =,tuJ rhl;rpaKk; Fw;wr;rhl;oid cWjp bra;a nghJkhdjhf ,y;iy/

¶38

eilbgw;w tha;bkhHp tprhuizapy; rk;gtj;Jld; bjhlh;g [ila muRjug;g [ rhd;whsh; 1 kw;Wk; 4 Mfpnahh;fs; mspj;Js;s rhl;rpaj;jpd; thapyhf 04/09/2014 k; njjpad;W gpiHahsh; Fw;wr;rhl;oy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sgo rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F brd;wija[k ; rj;jpah vd;gthplk;

¶39

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

¶40

3/5

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.22029 of 2018

¶42

jtWjyhf elf;f Kw;gl;ljhft[k ; bjspthf cWjpg;gLj;j ,aytpy;iy/ mnjnghy; muRjug;g [ rhd;whsh; 2. 3 kw;Wk; 5 Mfpnahh;fs; mspj;Js;s rhl;rpaKk; Fw;wr;rhl;oid cWjpg;gLj;j nghJkhdjhf ,y;iy/ nkYk; ghjpf;fg;gl;ljhf Twg;gLk; rj;jpah kw;Wk; uh$;Fkhh; Mfpnahuhy; vGj;JK:ykhd g [fhh; mspf;fg;glhjjhYk; mth;fs; fhty;Jiw tprhuizf;F xj;JiHf;ftpy;iy vd;gjhYk; ,f;Fw;wr;rhl;L bjhlh;g [ila epfH;t [fis btspf;bfhzu nghjpa rhl;rpa';fs; mikag;gbgwtpy;iy/

¶43

vdnt gpiHahsh; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;oid cWjpg;gLj;j nghjpa muRjug;g [ rhl;rpfs; ,y;yhjjhYk; tYg;gLj;j nghjpa muRjug;g Mtz';fs; ,y;yhjjhYk; gpiHahsh; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;L “epU:gzkhftpy;iy vd;W jPh;khdk; bra;fpnwd;/ '

¶44

The respondents have deviated from the stand adopted by the enquiry officer in imposing the impugned punishment and a perusal of the impugned orders do not justify the contrary stand adopted by the respondents. I have not noticed any material in the possession of the authorities, over and above what was available with the enquiry officer when he took a view in favour of the petitioner.

¶45

Even the counter filed is vague and does not contain any specific justification for such deviation. My attention is drawn to the averments in paragraph 11 of the counter wherein the respondents refer to the behaviour of the petitioner which, according to them has sullied the name of the police department.

¶46

I fail to understand the merit in this submission since the alleged act of the petitioner has itself not been proved by the respondents. In light of the discussion as aforesaid particularly, in view of the fact that the observations and conclusions of the enquiry officer have not been disturbed in an appropriate manner by the impugned orders, the impugned orders are quashed and this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶47

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶48

mnr

¶49

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

¶50

4/5

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.22029 of 2018

¶52

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned

¶53

¶54

The Director General of Police, Chennai – 600 004.

¶55

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli.

¶56

The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.

¶57

The Superintendent of Police, Karur District.

¶58

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-985[F] dated 10/01/2022 )

¶59

W.P.(MD)No.22029 of 2018 and WMP (MD) No. 19983 of 2018 07.01.2022

¶60

RD(07.02.2022) 5P 6C

¶61

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

¶62

5/5

R.S.Kumar v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.Kumar v. the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Banupriya Vs Mrs.Vasantha

C.Murugan Vs the Assistant Manager (Law)

R.Arulraj, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M.Mohamed Khan, S/O.Meeran Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Charles Britto Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Esakkimuthu, Vs the Director of Animal