Disposed

B.v.Ramesh v. The Director General of Police

Madras HC11 Oct 2023WP/20327/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A police constable challenged confirmed disciplinary orders imposing reduction in pay, relying on subsequent police acquittal. The High Court dismissed the writ, directing the petitioner to seek revision before the Government with specific timelines for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner to file a revision before the concerned authorities within two weeks; Government to pass orders within six weeks; No costs.

B.v.Ramesh Vs The Director General of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P No.20327 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.10.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

W.P No.20327 of 2021

B.V.Ramesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 004.

¶11

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanchipuram Range, Kanchipuram.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders made in Rc.No.033106/AP.I(2)/2015 dated 06.09.2017 passed by the 1^st respondent confirming the order dated 19.06.2010 made in C.No.B2/3456/2010 passed by the 2^nd Respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant all consequential service benefits including the seniority, promotion and

¶15

Page No.1 of 10

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P No.20327 of 2021

¶18

other monitory benefits to the petitioner.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders made in RC.No.033106/AP.I(2)/2015 dated 06.09.2017 passed by the 1^st respondent confirming the order dated 19.06.2010 made in C.No.B2/3456/2010 passed by the 2^nd Respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant all consequential service benefits including the seniority, promotion and other monitory benefits to the petitioner.

¶22

2. The petitioner is working as Head constable in the respondents police department. The petitioner's wife was also a police constable. The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 14.04.2007 in view of the first information report registered against him in Cr. No. 133 of 2007. Later, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 17.05.2007 with the following charges:

¶23

Page No.2 of 10

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P No.20327 of 2021

¶26

“ gpw;nrh;f;if-2

¶27

jpUts;~h; khtl;l Ma[jg;gil fhtyh; 579 jpU.unk#; vd;gtUf;F

¶28

vjpuhf bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;od; tpsf;fk;.

¶29

ePtPh;jpUts;~h; khtl;l Ma[jg;gilapy; fhtyuhf gzpgpupe;J tUfpwPh;. 1.6.05 md;W jpUts;~h;khtl;l Ma[jgilapy; rk;kjkpy;yhky; bghd;ndhp gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; (ReGistrar Office) gjpt[ jpUkzk;

¶30

bra;Js;sPh;. gpd;dh; ckJ kidtp nfhfpyht[f;Fk;

¶31

brd;idMa[jg;gil fhtyh; 24045 jpU.uhn$#;Fkhh; vd;gtUf;Fk;

¶32

fs;sj;bjhlh;g[ ,Ug;gij bjhpe;J bfhz;ljhy; c';fsJ cwtpy; tphpry; Vw;gl;L gphpe;J thH;fpd;wPh;. ckJ kidtpia tpthfuj;J bra;tJ bjhlh;ghf tHf;fwp";fh; \yk nehl;O!; mDg;gpa[s;sPh;. ,jw;F gpwFk; jpU.uhn$#;Fkhh; ckJ kidtp nfhfpyhtplk; jdf;F cs;s fs;sj;bjhlh;g[ gw;wp cellphone Messages ckf;F mof;fo mDg;gp bjhe;jut[ bfhLj;Js;shh;. ,g;gpur;rid bjhlh;ghf ckJ cah; mjpfhhpfsplnkh mUfpy; cs;s fhty; epiyaj;jpw;nfh jfty; bjhptpf;fhky; ,Ue;J kpft[k; fz;of;fj;jf;f xG';fPdkhd brayhFk;.

¶33

14.4.2007 md;W vt;tpj mDkjpnah/ tpLg;ngh bgwhky;

¶34

jiyikaplkhd jpUts;~h; khtl;l Ma[jg;gil mYtyfj;ij tpl;L jpUf;jzp brd;wJ ckJ gzpapy; myl;rpanghf;ifa[k;/ xG';fPdkhd elj;ijiaa[k; fhl;Ltjhf cs;sJ/ ”

¶35

Page No.3 of 10

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P No.20327 of 2021

¶38

2.1. After issuing charge memo, disciplinary proceedings were

¶39

initiated against the petitioner and he was found guilty for the above said charges and he was imposed with a punishment of removal from service. Subsequently the petitioner has filed a writ petition in WP.No. 14340/2008 on the ground that the punishment of removal from service was in-proportionate to the charges made against the him. In the said writ petition an order has been passed on 26.03.2010 by giving direction to the 2^nd respondent to decide only with regard to the punishment proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

¶40

2.2. Subsequently, the representation of the petitioner was considered and the punishment has been modified from reduction from service to reduction in pay by two stages for two years with cumulative effect. The same was appealed by the petitioner to the Deputy General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, but he only confirmed the punishment. Now this writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders made in Rc.No.033106/AP.I(2)/2015 dated 06.09.2017 by the 1^st respondent confirming the order dated 19.06.2010 made in

¶41

Page No.4 of 10

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P No.20327 of 2021

¶44

C.No.B2/3456/2010 by the 2^nd Respondent and quash the same.

¶45

3 . It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was

¶46

actually attacked by the other police constable Rajesh Kumar who declared that he had an illegal intimacy with the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner, who was a victim in the hands of the Rajesh Kumar was found guilty in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and he was slapped with a punishment also; the petitioner had not done anything against the department and he had not tarnished the image of the police force.

¶47

4 .Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Government Advocate for the

¶48

respondent submitted that the petitioner also played a role in bringing embarrassment to the police department by keeping silent after receiving a message to his cell phone from Rajesh Kuamr that he had an illegal intimacy with his own wife.

¶49

5. On the face of it the charges were levelled against the petitioner

¶50

Page No.5 of 10

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P No.20327 of 2021

¶53

are seen to be not serious. The petitioner had gone to the police station for giving complaint against Rajeshkumar, but Rajeshkumar did not allow him to give a compliant and he even assaulted the petitioner. In fact criminal proceedings were initiated against this petitioner and Rajesh Kumar would show that there was a scuffle between them when the petitioner opted to lodge a police complaint against Rajeshkumar.

¶54

6 . In fact cases in counter have been registered again the petitioner

¶55

and Rajeshkumar and the case against the petitioner has been tried in CC.No.320/2019 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruttani and he was acquitted. The other case tried against Rajesh Kumar in CC.N0.319/2019 ended in conviction and punishment has been imposed. The first appeal filed by the Rajesh Kumar also confirmed the conviction. It was once again confirmed in the criminal revision petition in Crl.RC.No.293/2021 also though the punishment was modified a bit.

¶56

7. On perusal of the order of punishment which has been confirmed by the respondents 1 and 2, it is seen that they did not consider

¶57

Page No.6 of 10

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P No.20327 of 2021

¶60

the fact that the petitioner was obstructed by the other police Rajesh Kumar when he went to the police station for lodging a complaint. In fact the petitioner could not file any complaint against Rajesh Kumar and he himself needed to face a criminal proceedings due to the un-towardness that had happened on the alleged day when he went to the police station.

¶61

8. The 1^st respondent ought to have considered this extraneous circumstances while imposing a punishment of stoppage of two increments on cumulative basis. The criminal case against the petitioner got disposed and he was acquitted only on 20.05.2019 which is subsequent to both the impugned orders dated 19.06.2010 and 06.09.2017. So the respondents might not be in a situation to appraise the whole circumstances.

¶62

9 . In view of the above stated reasons ,I feel the petitioner shall

¶63

prefer a revision before the Government for reconsidering the two impugned orders in the light of the criminal proceedings against him ended in acquittal and the other criminal proceedings against Rajesh

¶64

Page No.7 of 10

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P No.20327 of 2021

¶67

Kumar ended in conviction

¶68

10. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed by permitting the petitioner to file a revision before the concern authorities within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the Government shall consider the same and pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the revision. No costs.

¶69

11.10.2023

¶70

Index : Yes Internet : Yes/No jrs

¶71

Page No.8 of 10

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

W.P No.20327 of 2021

¶74

¶75

1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 004.

¶76

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanchipuram Range, Kanchipuram.

¶77

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶78

Page No.9 of 10

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P No.20327 of 2021

R.N.MANJULA, J.

jrs

W.P No.20327 of 2021

11.10.2023

Page No.10 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.v.Ramesh v. The Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.v.Ramesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Ravindran Vs The Tamil Nadu State

C.Gunasekaran Vs The Tamil Nadu State

T.Ravindran Vs The Tamil Nadu State

A.Jawaher Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

The Commissioner Vs Principal Secretary to Government

N.Indira Vs The Principal Secretary