Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
JOINT SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT, MADRAS & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
R.RAMALINGAM
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/09/1996
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal arises from an order of a learned Single
Member [Administrative] in Original Application No.2398 of
1991 quashing the order dismissing the respondent from
service and directing his reinstatement. The Tribunal has,
however, denied back wages observing at the same time that
the period between the date of dismissal and the date of the
Tribunal’s order shall count for service and pensionary
benefits.
The respondent, R.Ramalingam, a Head Constable, was
posted at Thiruvaiyaru Police Station. On the night
intervening 15th/16th August, 1987, one Meenambal went to
the police station enquiring whether her husband was in the
police custody. The respondent, it is said, misbehaved and
molested her on that occasion. On her shouting and
screaming, a Constable (PC 1168] came to the scene to whom
the said lady complained of the respondent’s misbehaviour.
In the meantime, the Inspector of Police, Mannergudi [Crime]
arrived with his party in a jeep at the police station in
search of an accused concerned in Mellatur P.S.Cr.No.205/89.
He rescued Meenambal from the situation. The Inspector sent
a report to the Superintendent of Police on 16-8-1987 about
the incident who in turn referred the matter to Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur [Rural] (D.S.P.) for
conducting a preliminary enquiry. The D.S.P. submitted a
report recommending disciplinary action. On the basis of the
said report, charges were framed. The gravamen of the
charges was the "highly reprehensible conduct and unbecoming
of a police officer in molesting one Meenambal at
Thiruvaiyaru Police Station at 0200 hrs. on 15/16.8.87 with
intention to rape". The D.S.P., Crime Record Bureau was
directed to hold a disciplinary enquiry. On the basis of the
report of the D.S.P., the respondent was dismissed from
service on 11/3/1988. The appeal and review preferred by the
respondent were dismissed. A mercy petition filed before the
Government was also rejected.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The respondent then approached the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal by way of an Original Application
[O.A.No.2398/91]. The respondent contended that the charge
memo was issued by the D.S.P. and not by the appointing
authority, viz., Superintendent of Police. According to him,
the D.S.P. had no jurisdiction to issue the memo of charges,
since he was not his appointing authority. He further
submitted that in his case the Revenue Divisional Officer
should have conducted the preliminary enquiry and on the
basis of his report, the Government should have decided
whether a disciplinary proceeding or a criminal prosecution
should be initiated against him. He also contended that a
copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report was not been supplied
to him and as such he was denied the reasonable opportunity
to defend himself.
The original application was heard by a learned single
member [Administrative] sitting singly, with the consent of
both the parties before it. The Tribunal allowed the
application holding that the D.S.P., being an authority
subordinate to the appointing authority, was not competent
to hold the disciplinary enquiry. It also held that serious
prejudice has been caused to the respondent on account of
non-supply of enquiry of officer’s report and that he has
been denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself on that
account. The Tribunal held further that since the statements
of witnesses examined during the preliminary enquiry were
not supplied to the respondent, the enquiry held was
vitiated. The Tribunal also found fault with the orders of
the disciplinary and appellate authorities as wanting in
reasons and hence, bad.
The first two grounds given by the Tribunal are
unsustainable in view of the decisions of this Court in
Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappa [1996 (2) S.C.C.
145] and in Managing Director, ECIL v. B.Karunakar [1993 (4)
S.C.C.727]. [The order of punishment/dismissal in this case
is prior to the decision in Ramzan Khan v. Union of India
[1991 (1) S.C.C.588].
So far as other grounds given by the Tribunal were
concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant offers
several reasons and explanations why the said grounds are
not sustainable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the respondent seeks to support those grounds. We are,
however, not inclined to go into the correctness or
otherwise of the said grounds. in all the circumstances of
this case, we think, this is a proper case, where the matter
should go back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision
according to law. The matter shall be heard by a Bench of
which atleast one is a Judicial Member.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms. The judgment
of the Tribunal impugned herein is set aside and the matter
remitted for a fresh consideration. No costs.