IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:11.06.2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATRAMAN WRIT PETITION NO.28091 OF 2006 .. Eronimus .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police Ramanathapuram. 2.The D.I.G. Of Police Ramanathapuram. .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the respondents orders herein in P.R.No.42/93 under rule 3(b) dated 8.11.94 passed by the first respondent herein and C.No.A4/3609/AP8/96 dated 18.4.96 passed by the Second Respondent herein in the appeal and the order passed by the first respondent herein cancelling the Upgradation order as Grade I.P.C. in sofar the applicant is concerned and quash the same and consequently confer all the attendant and consequential benefits with due regards to his seniority. For petitioner : Mr.A.S.Anand for M/s.Anand & Surya For respondents: Mr.S.Gopinathan Addl.Govt.Pleader .. ORDER The petitioner had moved the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai by filing O.A.No.379 of 1997, challenging the punishment imposed on him by the Original Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority by orders dated 08.11.1994 and 18.04.1996 respectively. The said Original Application had been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.28091 of 2006. 2. The short facts which led the petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal as set out by the petitioner in nutshell are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner while working as a Police Constable at Ramanathapuram District was served with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, dated 24.07.1993 of the first respondent. The charge against him was that while he was on sentry duty, because of his negligence and carelessness, one Muthuswamy, had committed suicide by hanging in the police station lavatory on 10.07.1992. An enquiry was conducted regarding the said charge and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges have been proved. The first respondent had held that the charges have been proved and awarded the punishment of reduction in pay by two stages with cumulative effect for two years by an order dated 08.11.1994. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the second respondent, Appellate Authority, who has confirmed the said order of the Original Authority by his order dated 18.04.1996. Thereafter, basing on the order of the original authority, viz., the first respondent herein, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Grade I Police Constable to Grade II Police Constable. Challenging the orders of the first and second respondent, the petitioner had thus approached the Tribunal by filing the Original Application referred to above. 3. In the said Original Application several grounds have been taken by the petitioner and some of the important grounds are set out hereunder: (i) Absolutely there is no basis for the charges against the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence to prove the entrustment of the deceased with the petitioner, the punishment imposed on the petitioner on the charges levelled against him is perverse and is liable to be set aside; (ii) The contentions raised by way of defence before the Original Authority and as well as before the Appellate Authority has not been considered by them and hence the said orders are liable to be set aside; (iii) The main and important witness, viz., the Sub- Inspector of Police, who has been cited as PW.12 has been dispensed with in the enquiry, since he has struck off as deserter. No proper steps have been taken to produce him before the Enquiry Officer. Thus the non-examination of the said crucial witness resulted in the denial of reasonable opportunity to cross examine him; (iv) The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has conducted the preliminary enquiry has not stated anything about the carelessness of the petitioner who has been posted as Sentry Police Constable. 4. Reply affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been set out that the petitioner being a Sentry Police Constable should have taken care in escorting the accused, the deceased and the carelessness and negligence on his part led the deceased to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ commit suicide. The petitioner was rightly dealt with on the proved charges and the punishment had been imposed on him rightly by the Original Authority, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have considered the entire aspects before imposing the punishment and confirming the same. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer would clearly establish that the petitioner was careless and negligent in his duty, which resulted in the accused committing suicide. 5. I have heard Mr.A.S.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, who made their submissions basing on the contentions raised in the original application and as well as the reply affidavit. 6. The Original Authority has not assigned any reason whatsoever while imposing the punishment on the petitioner. In this regard, it will be useful to extract the order of the Original Authority dated 08.11.1994, which reads as under: " I have carefully perused the Minute and other connected records. I agree with the findings of the Minute drawing Officer and hold the charge as proved. Hence, I award the delinquent a two stage reduction in pay with cumulative effect for two years." 7. Equally, the Appellate Authority has not assigned any reason whatsoever while disposing of the appeal of the petitioner by his order dated 18.04.1996. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said order are extracted hereunder. " 2. I have carefully perused the petition dated 29.12.1994 of Thiru Eronimus, P.C.848 against the order of Punishment in P.R.No.42/93 u/r.3(b). Thiru Eronimus was dealt with u/r.3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955 for "Gross neglect of duty and carelessness while on sentry duty to the extent that one Muthuswamy an accused of Erwadi committed suicide by hanging in the Police Station lavatory at 18-00 Hours on 10.07.92. After due enquiry the charge was held proved. 3. On a careful examination of available evidence, I agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the charge was proved. Considering the nature of delinquency and other relevant factors, the punishment awarded is not expensive. The appeal is dismissed." 8. Thus, the authorities have not assigned any reason whatsoever while imposing the punishment on the petitioner. Merely saying that the records have been perused and the report of the Enquiry Officer has been considered may not be a reason or appropriate reason for imposing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the punishment on the petitioner. In this regard it is relevant to refer the case decided on this aspect by this Court in Arokiadoss vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police and another (1989 WLR 274), wherein this Court has held that the Appellate Authority has to consider whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate. The relevant portion of the said judgement is para 4, which reads thus: " 4. In the present case, the order of the appellate authority does not indicate, whether the appellate authority considered the materials on record in the light of rule 6(1) of the Rules. He should have discussed the relevant evidence and found whether the facts on which the order of the disciplinary authority was based have been established. He should have also considered whether the facts afford sufficient ground for taking disciplinary action and whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate. As the order of the appellate authority does not show that he has considered the relevant matters prescribed under R.6(1) of the Rules, the order is vitiated. On this ground the order is liable to be quashed." 9. The authorities who are vested with the power to impose punishment and to dispose of the appeal are expected to give reasons for the same and they cannot merely pass a non-speaking order imposing punishment or confirming the punishment imposed by the original authority, especially when the petitioner has taken several grounds in the appeal. It is expected that the appellate authority has to dealt with the same either accepting or rejecting the said contentions. In this regard it is relevant to refer the following case law, viz., N.Vanaja vs. The Board of Directors of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., rep. By its Chairman and another (2006 (4) CTC 52). Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said judgement are relevant to the facts of the case on hand and the same are extracted hereunder: " 3. It is brought to the notice of this Court, Rule 6.25-A of the Service Rules of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, which contemplates that when an Appeal is preferred imposing penalties specified in Rule 6.15, the Appellate Authority shall consider whether the penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe and pass orders (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Rule 6.25-B contemplates that it shall be open to the Appellate Authority to call for the records in respect of any disciplinary proceeding and review any order made under these rules and pass such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ orders as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 4. After going through the order impugned in the Writ Petition, this Court is prima facie satisfied that the Appellate Authority except informing that after detailed examination a resolution has been passed to reject the Appeal made by the petitioner and confirm the order dated 01.06.2005 passed by the Managing Director, nothing has been stated, has not followed the Rules contemplated under Rule 6.25-A of the above said rules. Except saying that after detailed examination, no reason was given as specified under Rule 6.25-A of the above said service rules as to whether the Appellate Authority had considered that the punishment imposed was adequate or inadequate. What is the detailed examination is also not mentioned in that order." 10. In another decision, viz., Janarthanan, Assistant Executive Engineer, Palacode, Dharmapuri District vs. The Chief Engineer Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others (2004 WLR 636), this Court has held that the appellate authority has to consider all the contentions raised by the delinquent by applying its mind independently. Paragraph 7 of the said judgement is relevant, which is extracted hereunder: " 7. The appellate authority has merely confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority stating that no new points had been urged. If an appeal has been filed, it is the duty of the appellate authority to consider the contentions raised by application of independent mind. That having not been done, such order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained." 11. Considering the above facts and circumstances and in the light of the judgements cited above, I am of the considered view that neither the Original Authority nor the Appellate Authority has considered the matter in proper perspective and dealt with the various contentions raised by the petitioner and therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order of the second respondent dated 18.04.1996, who has confirmed the order of the first respondent dated 08.11.1994. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ kh To 1.The Superintendent of Police Ramanathapuram. 2.The D.I.G. Of Police Ramanathapuram. +1cc to M/s.Anand & Surya,Advocates Sr 28296 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 28994 KGK(CO) km/11.7. W.P.No.28091 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/