The petitioner is a Police Constable attached to D-6, Anna Square Police Station, Chennai. He was issued with a charge sheet dated 31.08.1994 under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging that on 12.02.1989 (Sunday), he took a girl by name Lakshmi, who was the resident of 56, Sivan Koil Street, Chettikulam, Tiruchi, to a dark place, near Anna Square Beach and committed rape.
2.The victim girl Lakshmi belongs to Tiruchi. Due to the ill-treatment by her step-mother, she left Tiruchi and came to Chennai. On 19.02.1989, at 10.30 p.m., she was found on the Mount Road, near Shanthi Theatre. She was taken by a Police Constable attached to D-1 Police Station and a case was registered against her in Crime No.664 that she committed nuisance. When she was enquired by the Inspector of Police, she complained that a week ago, the petitioner took her in a dark place, near Anna Square, behind a building and forcibly raped her. Based on the aforesaid complaint made by the said Lakshmi, a Criminal Case was registered against the petitioner.
3.The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 21.02.1989, by an order dated 23.02.1989. An enquiry under P.S.O.145 was also ordered.
4.The petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.7045 of 1993 to quash the suspension order dated 23.02.1989 and the Tribunal allowed the said Original Application on 11.11.1994.
5.In the meantime, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 31.08.1994 under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as stated above. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, law and order, Triplicane Range, was appointed as Enquiry Officer.
6.The petitioner filed another Original Application in O.A.No.5666 of 1994 to quash the aforesaid charge memo dated 31.08.1994. He also sought certain records, apart from seeking to quash the charge memo dated 31.08.1994. The Tribunal passed an order dated 23.11.1994 directing the respondents to furnish the records as sought by the petitioner and further directed the respondents to proceed with the Enquiry.
7.While so, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, passed an order dated 06.01.1995 stating that the suspension of the petitioner should be continued, until final orders were passed in the Disciplinary Proceedings.
8.The petitioner again filed Original Application in O.A.No.578 of 1995 to quash the said order dated 06.01.1995. The Tribunal granted interim order. Since the interim order was not complied with, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition.
9.In those circumstances, the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was permitted to join duty on 25.10.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. On the side of the Department, 7 witnesses were examined and on the side of the petitioner, 3 witness were examined as defence witnesses.
10.The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding dated 26.11.1996 that the charges were not proved. The Enquiry Officer found that the victim girl died and also the other witness one Rajammal also died. Out of 7 witnesses, 6 of them did not speak about the alleged charges. 7th witness alone spoke that the victim girl gave a complaint that the petitioner took her to a dark place in the Marina Beach near Anna Square and committed rape by force. According to the Enquiry Officer, this evidence was not sufficient to hold that the charges as proved. The Enquiry Officer found that the enquiry conducted under P.S.O.145 also held that the charges were not proved. Under such circumstances, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were not proved.
11. But the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Triplicane, the second respondent herein, did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He issued a notice dated 28.05.1997 stating that though the charge of rape was not proved, the deposition of PW-7, the Inspector of Police, D-I Police Station, and Ex.P7 marked in the Enquiry proved that the petitioner took the victim girl with bad intention to a dark place. Based on the said finding, the second respondent proposed to impose the punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect.
12. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed yet another Original Application in O.A.No.4160 of 1997 to quash the said notice dated 28.05.1997 of the second respondent. The petitioner also complained that while the second respondent issued the notice dated 28.05.1997 differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished. The Tribunal disposed the Original Application on 13.06.1997 directing the second respondent to furnish the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, within a period of one month from 13.06.1997 and then obtain his explanation and thereafter to pass appropriate orders.
13. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11210 of 1997 before the Division Bench of this Court, against the said order of the Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 16.12.1997 and disposed the writ petition, recording the fact that the petitioner was furnished with the report of the Enquiry Officer and permitted the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law.
14. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice dated 28.05.1997. After considering his explanation, the second respondent passed the impugned punishment order dated 03.11.1997 imposing the punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect.
15. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent passed an order dated 19.02.2000 dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal was preferred belatedly. The second respondent passed another order dated 28.02.2000 ordering recovery of Rs.33,291/- pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 03.11.1997.
16. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.2014 of 2000 (W.P.No.13725 of 2006) to quash the order dated 03.11.1997 of the second respondent; the order dated 19.02.2000 of the first respondent and the order dated 28.02.2000 of the second respondent.
17. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer held that the charges were not established. According to him, there is absolutely no evidence in support of the charges. Thus, the punishing authority was not justified in coming to a different conclusion.
19. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that the punishing authority relied on the evidence of PW-7, the Inspector of Police, D-1 Police Station and also Ex.P7 marked in the enquiry and recorded a finding that the petitioner took the victim girl to a dark place with bad intention. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
20. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
21. The petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated 31.08.1994 under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The crux of the allegation was that the petitioner took one Lakshmi to a dark place near Anna Square behind a building and forcibly raped her. The charge was based on the complaint made by the victim girl to the Inspector of Police, D-1 Police Station.
22. It is true that in the enquiry no other witness deposed in support of the charges. However, the Inspector of D-1 Police Station deposed that the victim girl complained to him that she was taken to a dark place and that she was raped. Since the commission of rape was not proved by any other evidence, the disciplinary authority recorded a finding that the petitioner was guilty of taking the victim girl to a dark place with bad intention. The evidence of PW-7 in this regard is extracted here-under:-
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED
23. The report of the Inspector of Police, Ex.P-7 was also marked. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
r n s To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Triplicane, O/o the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
Comments