IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA WP.No.21660 of 2008 S.Lingeswaran .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore -18. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the orders of the 1st respondent in D2/AP/17/2007 dated 08.09.2007 modifying the order in J1/PR.9/2006 dated 30.03.2007 of 2nd respondent and quash the same and confer all consequential and other attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramadevan For respondents : Mr.K.V. Dhanapalan, AGP ORDER The petitioner S.Lingeswaran has come to this court by filing the present writ petition to quash the order of the 1st respondent in D2/AP/17/2007 dated 08.09.2007 modifying the order of the second respondent in J1/PR.9/2006 dated 30.03.2007 and to confer all consequential and other attendant benefits to him. 2. The petitioner, while he was serving as Head Constable, suffered with charge memo dated 27.04.2006 issued under rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (disciplinary and appeal) Rule 1955. The allegation mentioned in the charge memo is as follows: "Highly reprehensible and in unbecoming conduct and lethargic attitude of a police officer in having allowed the accused Kothampan @ Ramaswamy (47) s/o. Rangasamy of Kottapalayam, Karapadi Village concerned in Puliampatty P.S. Crime No.460/2005 u/s.4(1)(aaa) r/w4(1-A) TNP Act to escape from custody at 15.30hrs on 23.11.2005 near sub jail Sathyamangalam. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The petitioner, after receipt of the charge memo, submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority, after receipt of his explanation, having found no merits in the explanation submitted by the petitioner, appointed an enquiry officer to go into the charges levelled in the charge memo. Thereafter, the enquiry officer also conducted a detailed enquiry and found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, on receipt of the report from the enquiry officer, the petitioner was awarded with punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore who also fell in line with the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Though the first respondent confirmed the findings of the disciplinary authority, modified the punishment into stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come forward to this court by way of filing the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner also filed mercy petition before the first respondent/ Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore and the first respondent rejected the said mercy petition in RC.No.AP.1(1)/ 145086/2008, dated 21.09.2008. However, the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the first respondent. 5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed his submissions on two folds: firstly, the petitioner was entrusted with the court duty to produce an accused one Kothampan @ Ramasamy (47) s/o.Rangasamy, Kottapalayam, Karapadi Village who was arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police, for the offence of possessing 110 liters of ID Arrack, before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam for remand extension. The Sub Inspector, Puliampatty Police Station had conducted roll call, allotted escort duty to both the petitioner and one HC1245-Marutha Gounder. Both the head constables came to the Judicial Magistrate Court, but the petitioner instructed Marutha Gounder to take the accused from sub jail. On receipt of the instruction from the petitioner, another HC1245- Marutha Gounder took the accused in his two wheeler and came out of the sub jail and while he was above to start the two wheeler, the accused escaped towards east and entered into the nearby sugarcane field and escaped from the custody, for which the charge memo was issued to both the petitioner and HC1245-Marutha Gounder. He was issued charge memo containing the charge that the petitioner had committed highly reprehensible and in unbecoming conduct and lethargic attitude of a police officer in having allowed the accused Kothapam @ Ramasamy to escape from his custody at 15.30hrs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 23.11.2005 near sub jail Sathyamangalam. 7. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Sub Inspector/PW1 at the time of allotting the court duty to take the custody of the accused to the court, should have made proper arrangement for giving the arms, ammunitions and handcuffs, since the Sub Inspector/PW1 miserably failed to furnish the arms, ammunitions and handcuffs, the petitioner who also after asking HC1245-Marutha Gounder to take the accused to the nearby magistrate court left for doing his part of his work in the court. It was further contended that since the petitioner was busy in the court, he requested HC1245-Marutha Gounder to secure the accused from the Sathyamangalam Sub Jail to Magistrate Court, Sathyamangalam. When HC1245-Marutha Gounder went to secure the accused from the Sathyamangalam sub jail, he failed to collect the sufficient arms, ammunitions including the handcuffs, therefore he contended that if at all any one can be fixed with any responsibilities, only HC1245-Marutha Gounder will alone be held responsible, but not the petitioner. On that basis, he further contended that the punishment imposed against the petitioner viz., stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect by the first respondent is liable to set aside, as the petitioner cannot be in any way connected to the charge for which the charge memo was issued. 8. Opposing the said contentions, the learned Additional Government Pleader appeared for the respondents has contended that the defence taken by the petitioner in the enquiry was properly considered by the enquiry officer. Though the petitioner has taken his defence that he was not furnished with arms, ammunitions and handcuffs, so as to take the accused to nearby Sathyamangalam Magistrate Court, it is the duty of the petitioner to collect the necessary arms, ammunitions and handcuffs at the time of taking the accused to the nearby court. Since he has been serving as Head Constable quite long time, he should have asked for the same from the Inspector or Sub Inspector at the time of securing the accused from the Sathyamangalam Sub Jail. The petitioner being Head constable, having failed to collect the arms, ammunitions and handcuff, it is unfair on the part of the petitioner to say that the Sub Inspector who allotted the court duty had failed to supply the necessary arms, ammunitions and handcuffs, as a result of that, the accused escaped from the custody of HC1245-Marutha Gounder. Both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have properly considered the case of the petitioner and the petitioner was originally imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for one year and on appeal, the first respondent properly considered the case of the petitioner and modified the punishment into stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 9. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, since the first respondent has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ already considered the case of the petitioner by modifying the original punishment into stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect by the first respondent and the said punishment being minor, I do not find any merit in the impugned order. Secondly, the petitioner has not suffered with any major punishment for the proved misconduct as rightly found by both the original authority as well as the appellate authority. 10. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. tsh Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore -18. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode. + 1 cc to Mr. S. Kamadevan, Advocate SR No.32849 KJI(CO) SR/11.7.2011 W.P.No.21660 Of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/