IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31.01.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition No.961 of 2007 (O.A.No.6569 of 2000) S.Murugananth (Deceased) M.Nirmala devi S/o. Late Murugananth Residing at V.M.Street, Ayyapuram, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District (Petitioner substituted as Legal Representative of the deceased / petitioner, as per the order dated 16.11.2010 by KKSJ in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.961 of 2007) ... Petitioner -Vs.- 1. Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tirunelveli District 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the punishment of dismissal from service passed by the first respondent herein in his P.R.195/99 dated 5.5.2000 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent herein in his C.No.C1/AP.60/2000, dated 4.8.2000 and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : Mrs. Sudha Rani For Respondents : Mr. R.Murali, Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner was worked as a Grade I Police Constable in the Tirunelveli District. He has filed O.A.No.6569 of 2000 challenging the order dated 05.05.2000 passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the second respondent, vide order, dated 04.08.2000. By the impugned orders, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service for proving misconduct. The period of suspension from 01.09.1999 to 05.05.2000 was treated to be as a mere suspension. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Original Application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in O.A.No.6569 of 2000 was admitted by the Tribunal on 07.09.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 30.10.2000. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re- numbered as W.P.No.961 of 2007, during the pendency of these proceedings. 3. It is stated that the original petitioner expired on 20.12.2005 and his wife, M.Nirmaladevi, filed M.P.No.1 of 2008 before this Court and has come on record to pursue the case. 4. The charge against the petitioner was that he tried to compel one Pitchiah Nadar, to stop collection of donations from some Thevar Community People for the temple festival to be held in Ayyapuram Village and when Pitchaiah Nadar continued the collection, he assaulted the said Pichai Nadar on 01.08.1999 and involved himself in a criminal case for the offence under Sections 341, 294 (b), 323 and 506 (ii) read with 307 IPC. A Criminal case was registered in Crime No.667 of 1999 and the same was tried by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thenkasi, in S.C.No.708 of 2000. It transpires that finally the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case being accused No.1. Vide judgment, dated 20.07.2005, the Sessions Court found that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. During the trial, the Sessions Judge, found that there was no ingredients made out for the offence under Section 307 IPC, but found the petitioner under guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and therefore imposed him the conviction on that account and the penalty was two years Simple Imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Likewise for the proved offence under Section 323 IPC, he was imposed with a punishment of one year Simple Imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. 5. It is now stated that immediately within five months after the conviction, the petitioner died. But in so far as the Department is concerned, notwithstanding the criminal case, the Department enquiry proceeded in respect of those charges and it was found that in the oral enquiry held nine witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 9 and the evidence pointed out that the petitioner was guilty of both these charges and therefore, agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer, the first respondent found that nine witnesses together with the eleven documents showed that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and since the charges were grave in nature, it requires a maximum punishment and accordingly, the punishment was imposed. 6. The original petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, the second respondent considered the remarks raised by the petitioner and found that the petitioner's action has created a communal hatred in the village and keeping such disgruntled elements in force will spoil the image of the police force and the society at large and therefore, the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of miscarriage committed by him. 7. Though Mrs. Sudha Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, stated that the original petitioner has served for a long number of years and since he is no more, this Court may exercise https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ discretionary powers to convert the dismissal into one of compulsory retirement, so that the petitioner's family / impleaded petitioner can get pension. For this purpose, the learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, an unreported order of this Court reported in K.Periyasamy v. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai and two others in W.P.(MD) No.4024 of 2007, dated 01.10.2007. In the said case, the charges levelled against the petitioner therein / policeman was that he collected mamool from TASMAC Shop and for that purpose, he was dismissed, after 29 years of service. While interfering with the penalty, this Court found that the punishment imposed on him was disproportionate and considering the sufferings, the penalty was modified. 8. But, in the present case, not only the petitioner was proceeded with departmental enquiry, but also with a criminal case, where he has been imposed with a sentence of imprisonment. Even before serving the same, he passed away and secondly, the second respondent / Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, has recorded in his findings that the petitioner has created communal hatred among the villagers and keeping such disgruntled person in police force will spoil the image of the police force and the society at large and the dismissal alone, can save the image of the police. 9. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to modify the penalty, as such. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised only in the extraordinary circumstances of the case and not in a case of this nature. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out in this writ petition. Hence, the above writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar srk To 1. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tirunelveli District. 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli. + 1 cc to Mr.S. Ravi, Advocate sR.7110 + 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.7374 W.P.No.961 of 2007 (O.A.No.6569 of 2000) RSM(CO) Eu 14.2.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 31.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/