M.Muthukumaran, v. The State of Tamilnadu

ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Government Order passed by the first respondent vide G.O.(D).No.991 Home (Police VI) Department dated 24.08.2018, confirming the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide his proceedings C.No.A2(2)/6525/AP 97/09 dated 30.06.2009, confirming the punishment order passed by the fourth respondent vide his proceedings C.No.F1/PR.100/07, u/r 3(b) dated 18.02.2009.

¶2Originally, the petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on

16.06.1993 in Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board, then promoted as Grade-I, then as Head Constable. A charge memo dated 09.09.2005 was issued alleging on 09.09.2005 at 12.00 p.m., during working hours, the petitioner stole diesel from the police vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-59-G-0298. The petitioner stole the diesel from one Mr.Sheikbakathur, the owner of the Gori Work Shop, which is Government approved workshop. After receiving the charge memo, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation stating that he went to the workshop for water service, after obtaining memo No.91/BW/SIMT MD/D5 dated 08.09.2005 from the Motor Transport Branch in Armed Reserve, Madurai. There were many vehicles for service on that day and hence, the petitioner took his vehicle to the workshop on the next day i.e., 09.09.2005, after obtaining permission from the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tirupparankundram.

¶3The contention of the petitioner is that there was a leakage in the diesel tube of the vehicle. After carrying out the repairs and service, the concerned work shop issued a bill bearing Bill No.1303 for Rs.225/- and the same was handed over to the said workshop owner. The petitioner denied the allegation and submitted an explanation. An enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner has participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer filed a report holding that the charges are proved. The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation for the same on 25.01.2009. After receipt of the explanation, the respondents imposed a punishment vide order dated 18.02.2009 under Rule 3(b) for postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, wherein, the punishment was modified into the postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶4The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that several police personnel spotted the petitioner stealing the diesel from the vehicle. Therefore, the higher authorities inspected and checked all the vehicles along with the police personnel, who was steeling the vehicle. Then the respondents appointed six persons who were screening the said work shop and the said persons have videographed all the vehicles. According to the respondents, they have videographed the petitioner's vehicle namely TN-59-G-0298. Based on the videograph evidence, the petitioner was imposed punishment. The petitioner was also granted an opportunity of hearing before the enquiry officer. Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The appellate authority has reduced the punishment and therefore the respondents claim that the punishment imposed is legally valid and it is only lesser punishment and prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶5Heard Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Thambidurai, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶6The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the cross examination, wherein, the enquiry officer has specifically put a question to the petitioner that on seeing the video evidence, the petitioner was directed to reply. The petitioner submitted that his vehicle was not shown in the video, hence he has nothing to explain. The relevant portion is extracted herein: tprhuiz mjpfhhpapd; FWf;F tprhuiz: tPbNah glk; cq;fs; Kd;G fhl;lg;gLfpwJ ghh;j;Jf;nfhs;sTk;. Nfs;tp: ePq;fs; ,g;NghJ ghh;j;j tPbNahtpy; TN-59-G-0640 & TN-59-G-0590 Mfpa ,uz;L thfdq;fspd; Nkw;gb

tPbNahtpy;

gjpT

nra;ag;gl;lij fhz;gpf;fg;gl;lJ. ,Jgw;wp cq;fsJ mgpg;gpuhak; vd;d? gjpy;: vd;Dila thfdk; ,d;W ePq;fs; fhz;gpj;j tPbNahtpy;

gjpthftpy;iy

NtW

ve;j mgpg;gpuhaKk; ,y;iy.

¶7On perusing the evidence, it is seen the videograph indicates the particulars of the vehicles as TN-59-G-0640 & TN-59-G-0590. In the charge memo, the vehicle number is stated as TN-59-G-0298 and this said vehicle was not shown in the video at all. But the respondents also relied on the evidence of P.W.3, wherein it states that the petitioner's vehicle TN-59-G-0298 came to the shop. The relevant portion is extracted herein: muRrhl;rp 3 jpU.godpr;rhkp vd;gtiu tprhhpj;jNghJ jhd; nrf;fhZudp rhh;gjpthsh; Mf gzpGuptjhfTk; kJiu khtl;l gjpthsh; mth;fspd; cj;juTg;gb Coy;jLg;Gg; gphpT Jizf;fz;fhzpg;ghsh; mth;fspd; MNyhridg;gbAk;

09.09.2005-k;

Njjp

09.00

kzpapypUe;J

kJiu Nfhhpg;ghisak; nrdha;efh; n[f[Ptd;uhk; njUtpYs;s Nfhhp Ml;Nlhnkigy; xh;f;\hg;gpy; muR thfdq;fspy; Bry; jpUb vLg;gJ rk;ge;jkhf ufrpakhf fz;fhzpj;J tUtjw;fhf me;j xh;f;\hg;gpd; gf;fj;jpYs;s fl;blj;jpy; F*tpdUld; fz;fhzpj;J te;jjhfTk; mg;NghJ TN-59-G-0590 nlk;Ngh Ntd; 11.25 kzpf;F cs;Ns te;J Briy vLj;J nfhLj;Jtpl;L 11.30 kzpf;F ntspNa NghdJ mjid njhlu;e;J fhty;Jiw thfdk; TN-59-G-0298 [Pg; Rkhh; 12.00 kzpf;F Nkw;gb xh;f;\hg;gpd; cs;Ns te;J Briy vLj;Jf;nfhLj;Jtpl;L ntspNa NghdjhfTk; Nkw;gb rk;gtq;fis ,J rk;ge;jkhf yQ;r xopg;Gj;Jiw cjtp Ma;thsh; jpU.fhkuh[; rk;gtj;ij tPbNah glk; vLj;jjhfTk; ,J njhlh;ghf Coy; jLg;G gphpT Jizf;fz;fhzpg;ghsh; jpBh; ,iz mwpf;if xd;iw jahh; nra;J mjpy; jhDk; jd;Dld; ,Ue;j F*tpdUk; ifna*j;jpl;ljhfTk; jhd; ,jw;F Kd;G 11.04.2006 k; Njjp Coy;jLg;Gg; gphpT fhty; Ma;thsh; mth;fsplk; xU thf;FKyk; nfhLj;jjhfTk;. me;j thf;F Kyk; muR rhd;whtzk; 4 MFk; vd;Wk; njhptpj;Js;shh;. According to P.W.3, even the petitioner's vehicle was also videographed. But the videograph the petitioner vehicle was not there. Since the statement of the P.W.3 is not supported by the evidence, the contention of the petitioner that his vehicle was not at all involved ought to be accepted, it is a case of no evidence.

¶8Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents on assumption had imposed the punishment. Hence, the punishment ought to be quashed.

¶9In the light of the above observations, the impugned punishment order is quashed and the respondents are directed to pass consequential orders and the said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

26.04.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sbn To

1.TheAdditional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Police VI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 004.

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. S.SRIMATHY, J sbn W.P(MD).No.8583 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.6701 & 6702 of 2016

26.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 26.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD).No.8583 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.6701 & 6702 of 2016 M.Muthukumaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Police VI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, O/o The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 004. 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, O/o.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai. 4.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Government order passed by the first respondent vide impugned G.O.(D).No.991 Home (Police VI) Department dated 24.08.2018 confirming the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide his proceedings C.No:A2(2)/6525/AP 97/09 dated 30.06.2009 confirming the punishment order passed by the fourth respondent vide his proceedings C.No.A2(2)/6525/AP 97/09 dated 30.06.2009 confirming the punishment order passed by the fourth respondent vide his proceedings C.No.F1/PR.100/07, u/r 3(b) dated 18.02.2009 and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents :Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate