R.Thirugnanam ... Vs. the Superintendent of Police Thanjavur District, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
prayer: this writ petition came to be numbered under article 226 of the constitution of india by way of transfer of o.a.no.5339 of 2000 from the file of tamil nadu administrative tribunal with a prayer to call for the records relating to the order in p.r.no.43/2000 (k2/p.r.43/2000) dated 15.06.2000 of the superintendent of police, thanjavur district, thanjavur (the respondent herein) and set aside the same. 1. the petitioner entered the services in police department as police constable on 10.10.1977. after working in various stations, he was transferred and posted to control room, thanjavur. he worked therein from 29.03.1998 to 18.11.1999. while he was working in control room, the police dress intended to the constable was not supplied to him by the inspector of police, control room. he made a complaint against the inspector. hence, there was some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the inspector. 2. the inspector of police issued a memo to the petitioner on 20.11.1998, for which the petitioner submitted his reply on 21.11.1998 duly narrating the attitude of the inspector. but no further action was taken against the said inspector. therefore, the inspector induced one head constable mr.panneer selvam to make false complaint against the petitioner. 3. accordingly, the head constable gave a false complaint on 30.11.1998 against the petitioner stating that the petitioner used abusive language. the said complaint was forwarded to the deputy superintendent of police, thanjavur with a recommendation and report of the inspector to take action against the petitioner. 4.the deputy superintendent of police issued a charge memo dated 18.01.2000 under rule 3(a) of the tamil nadu police subordinate service (discipline and appeal) rules alleging that the petitioner used abusive language against the head constable and obstructed him from doing his work. 5. according to the petitioner, the charges were vague and ambiguous. he wrote a letter dated 23.03.2000 requesting the deputy superintendent of police to permit him to peruse the documents. but permission was granted to peruse only one document viz., general diary. in respect of two documents, he was not permitted to peruse the same and in respect of one other document, it was stated that the same was destroyed. 6. hence, the petitioner submitted another letter dated 28.04.2000 requesting to peruse the documents. but the deputy superintendent of police passed an order dated 02.05.2000 rejecting his request. 7. the petitioner gave another letter on 12.05.2000 requesting to direct the enquiry officer to furnish the copies of documents to enable him to submit his explanation. however, no reply was given by the respondents. but an order dated 15.06.2000 was passed imposing the punishment of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect. 8. the petitioner filed original application in o.a.no.5339 of 2000 (w.p.no.44621 of 2006) praying to quash the aforesaid order dated 15.06.2000 of the respondent. 9. the respondent filed reply affidavit stating that the petitioner was in drunken mood and used abusive language against the head constable. based on the complaint of the head constable, the charge memo was issued under rule 3(a) of the tamil nadu police subordinate service (discipline and appeal) rules. the petitioner sought four records on 23.03.2000 for his defence. one of the records was destroyed and two other records were irrelevant and the other record viz., general diary was produced. but he did not peruse the general diary and he wanted all the documents to be produced. hence, his request was rejected. it is also stated that the enquiry officer recorded an ex-parte minute on 16.05.2000. based on the said minute, the said punishment was imposed. 10. heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.11. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges are vague and ambiguous. when the allegation of drunkenness was made, he was not referred to medical examination and there was no evidence to prove the drunkenness. further the alleged abusive words used by the petitioner were not mentioned, except stating in general that the petitioner used abusive language. the learned counsel further submits that the required documents are not furnished and an ex-parte minute was drawn without providing any opportunity to the petitioner. it is also submitted that the inspector of police acted vindictively and he was only responsible in recommending the complaint as the petitioner made a complaint against the inspector relating to the distribution of uniform. 12. on the other hand, the learned government advocate submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. i have considered the submissions made on either side.14. in my view, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded. as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charges are vague. the charges made in the charge memo are as follows: vernacular (tamil) portion deleted15. even in charge memo, the actual words used by the petitioner were not stated. on the other hand, it is stated that "vgj;jpy; vgj koahj thh;j;ijfisg; ngrp jpl;lfpwhh;". in the absence of giving actual words used by the petitioner, it could not be presumed that it was an abusive language. in this context, the following passage in the decision of this court in k.m.ramasamy vs. assistant commissioner of labour (controlling authority under the payment of gratuity act), coimbatore reported in 1991 (ii) lln 965 squarely applies to the facts of this case. "3.learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is silent with regard to the alleged abusive words used by the petitioner and that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain and that the impugned order is, therefore, against the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and it is illegal. learned government advocate, appearing for the respondent is unable to point out the actual words alleged to have been used by the petitioner in the course of the proceedings. under such circumstances, the impugned order is quashed as it is against the principles of natural justice........" further, it is also not stated as to how he prevented the head constable from discharging his duties. hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submissions that the charges are vague. 16. as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent was not justified in refusing to furnish the available documents. the respondent could not simply say that the documents are irrelevant. further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, the head constable was not examined in the enquiry. it is stated that an ex-parte enquiry was conducted. hence, neither in the charge memo nor in the enquiry, the actual words allegedly used by the petitioner were not brought on record. there is no evidence relating to the allegation that he was in a drunken mood. there is also no evidence as to how he prevented the head constable from discharging his duties. before the enquiry officer recorded the ex-parte minute, the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity. furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the inspector of police acted vindictively, since the petitioner made a complaint against him in his explanation dated 21.11.1998. the following is the complaint made by the petitioner against the inspector: vernacular (tamil) portion deleted17.in these circumstances, the version of the petitioner that the inspector induced the head constable and obtained a report and recommended for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, could not be brushed aside. 18. for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. no costs.

Judgment:
1. The petitioner entered the services in Police Department as Police Constable on 10.10.1977. After working in various stations, he was transferred and posted to Control Room, Thanjavur. He worked therein from 29.03.1998 to 18.11.1999. While he was working in Control Room, the Police dress intended to the Constable was not supplied to him by the Inspector of Police, Control Room. He made a complaint against the Inspector. Hence, there was some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the Inspector.

2. The Inspector of Police issued a memo to the petitioner on 20.11.1998, for which the petitioner submitted his reply on 21.11.1998 duly narrating the attitude of the Inspector. But no further action was taken against the said Inspector. Therefore, the Inspector induced one Head Constable Mr.Panneer Selvam to make false complaint against the petitioner.

3. Accordingly, the Head Constable gave a false complaint on 30.11.1998 against the petitioner stating that the petitioner used abusive language. The said complaint was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur with a recommendation and report of the Inspector to take action against the petitioner.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police issued a charge memo dated 18.01.2000 under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules alleging that the petitioner used abusive language against the Head Constable and obstructed him from doing his work.

5. According to the petitioner, the charges were vague and ambiguous. He wrote a letter dated 23.03.2000 requesting the Deputy Superintendent of Police to permit him to peruse the documents. But permission was granted to peruse only one document viz., general diary. In respect of two documents, he was not permitted to peruse the same and in respect of one other document, it was stated that the same was destroyed.

6. Hence, the petitioner submitted another letter dated 28.04.2000 requesting to peruse the documents. But the Deputy Superintendent of Police passed an order dated 02.05.2000 rejecting his request.

7. The petitioner gave another letter on 12.05.2000 requesting to direct the Enquiry Officer to furnish the copies of documents to enable him to submit his explanation. However, no reply was given by the respondents. But an order dated 15.06.2000 was passed imposing the punishment of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect.

8. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.5339 of 2000 (W.P.No.44621 of 2006) praying to quash the aforesaid order dated 15.06.2000 of the respondent.

9. The respondent filed reply affidavit stating that the petitioner was in drunken mood and used abusive language against the Head Constable. Based on the complaint of the Head Constable, the charge memo was issued under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner sought four records on 23.03.2000 for his defence. One of the records was destroyed and two other records were irrelevant and the other record viz., general diary was produced. But he did not peruse the general diary and he wanted all the documents to be produced. Hence, his request was rejected. It is also stated that the Enquiry Officer recorded an ex-parte minute on 16.05.2000. Based on the said minute, the said punishment was imposed.

10. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges are vague and ambiguous. When the allegation of drunkenness was made, he was not referred to medical examination and there was no evidence to prove the drunkenness. Further the alleged abusive words used by the petitioner were not mentioned, except stating in general that the petitioner used abusive language. The learned counsel further submits that the required documents are not furnished and an ex-parte minute was drawn without providing any opportunity to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Inspector of Police acted vindictively and he was only responsible in recommending the complaint as the petitioner made a complaint against the Inspector relating to the distribution of uniform.

12. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

13. I have considered the submissions made on either side.

14. In my view, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charges are vague. The charges made in the charge memo are as follows: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED

15. Even in charge memo, the actual words used by the petitioner were not stated. On the other hand, it is stated that "vGj;jpy; vGj Koahj thh;j;ijfisg; ngrp jpl;Lfpwhh;". In the absence of giving actual words used by the petitioner, it could not be presumed that it was an abusive language. In this context, the following passage in the decision of this Court in K.M.RAMASAMY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT), COIMBATORE reported in 1991 (II) LLN 965 squarely applies to the facts of this case.

"3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is silent with regard to the alleged abusive words used by the petitioner and that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain and that the impugned order is, therefore, against the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and it is illegal. Learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent is unable to point out the actual words alleged to have been used by the petitioner in the course of the proceedings. Under such circumstances, the impugned order is quashed as it is against the principles of natural justice........" Further, it is also not stated as to how he prevented the Head Constable from discharging his duties. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submissions that the charges are vague.

16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent was not justified in refusing to furnish the available documents. The respondent could not simply say that the documents are irrelevant. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, the Head Constable was not examined in the enquiry. It is stated that an ex-parte enquiry was conducted. Hence, neither in the charge memo nor in the enquiry, the actual words allegedly used by the petitioner were not brought on record. There is no evidence relating to the allegation that he was in a drunken mood. There is also no evidence as to how he prevented the Head Constable from discharging his duties. Before the Enquiry Officer recorded the ex-parte minute, the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Inspector of Police acted vindictively, since the petitioner made a complaint against him in his explanation dated 21.11.1998. The following is the complaint made by the petitioner against the Inspector: VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED

17.In these circumstances, the version of the petitioner that the Inspector induced the Head Constable and obtained a report and recommended for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, could not be brushed aside.

18. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.