IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.12.2010 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition Nos.45971 and 45972 of 2006 (O.A.Nos.9028 and 9029 of 2000) S.Mariajohn .. Petitioner in W.P.45971/2006 K.Tamilarasan .. Petitioner in W.P.45972/2006 Vs Assistant Commissioner of Police Armed Reserve, I Platoon 'A' Company, City Police Office Chennai-8 .. Respondent in both the WPs. Prayer:-These writ petition have been originally filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal O.A.Nos.9028 and 9029 of 2000 and transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.Nos.45971 and 45972 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect passed by the respondent herein in his P.R.No.399/TP.2(1)/2000 dated 07.11.2000 and the consequential order passed in P.R.No.399/CCP/TP.2(1)/2000, C.P.O.No.2161/2000 dated 07.11.2000 and P.R.No.410/TP.2(2)/2000 dated 14.11.2000 and quash the same with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For petitioner ... Mr.S.Ravi For respondent ... Mr.R.Murali Govt.Advocate O R D E R The two petitioners filed O.A.Nos.9028 and 9029 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge identical punishment given by the orders of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve dated 07.11.2000. The petitioners were imposed with the penalty of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. The petitioners did not file any appeal against such orders. But they moved the Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Tribunal admitted the two O.As., on 11.12.2000 and granted an interim stay of penalty. Subsequently, the said interim order came to be extended without specifying anything by order dated 04.01.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.45971 and 45972 of 2006. 3. Neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court, no counter affidavit was filed on the side of the respondent. The charges levelled against both the petitioners were identical. That when selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police were being undertaken, certain Television reporters entered the Armed Reserve quarters occupied by the petitioners and recorded the statements of the relatives of the Policemen. It is alleged that the petitioners were responsible for bringing T.V., cameramen and reporters and recorded interviews in the quarters. It so happened, the petitioners' wives statements were also recorded. Therefore, charge memos were framed under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 4. The charge against the petitioners were that without getting permission from the higher officers, the Television reporters from Jaya T.V., were brought to the quarters and interview was given to them saying that there was no proper selection to the post of Sub-Inspectors. The interviews brought disrepute to the department and such conduct are reprehensible. The basis of such charge was the statement given by one Ilayaraja of the 15th Battalion and also a letter written by the Additional Director General cum Commissioner of Police dated 03.10.2000. 5. The petitioners gave identical reply stating that they never gave any interview to Jaya T.V., and also never instructed anybody to give statements. The charges were also baseless and they were not responsible for brining the T.V., reporters to the Police quarters. 6. Notwithstanding the said explanation, the competent authority viz., the Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) 'A' Unit, Pudupet held that the explanation of the petitioners were not acceptable. 7. It is further alleged by the respondent that on 10.09.2000, being the immersion ceremony of Vinayaka idols and as most of the policemen will be detailed for Bandhobust duty, the T.V.,reporters were brought at that time to the quarters and the wives of the petitioners were made to give interviews. On the basis of the statement of Ilayaraja, who was the Head Constable and on the letter of the Director General of Police cum Commissioner of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Police, the charges levelled against the petitioners were held to be proved. 8. In this context, it is necessary to refer to Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1973. Rule 15(3) prohibits grant of any interview to the Television programmes except by previous sanction of the Government. Rule 14 talks about unauthorised communication of information. Rule 16 talks about Criticism of Government. 9. In the present case, the charge levelled against the petitioners was that they were instrumental in giving interview to the Jaya T.V., reporters. But in the enquiry held, except relying on the statement of a Head Constable and also a communication sent by the Commissioner and Director General of Police, there was no other material produced to prove that petitioners were responsible for bringing the T.V.,reporters. The petitioners have also categorically denied the charges. When a denial was made by the petitioners, it is the incumbent duty of the respondent to prove that the petitioners were instrumental for giving interview to the T.V., reporters. Assuming that the wives of the policemen have aired their grievances, the conduct rule does not indicate any penalty to the service personnel for such conduct of their wives being attributable to them. 10. In the present case, in order to substantiate the findings of the enquiry officer and to make the petitioners responsible for the charge levelled against them, the respondent should provide credible materials that the petitioners also were instrumental for bringing the Television Reporters. It is not out of place to mention that there are stringers attached to various Television channels, who roam around the town fishing for such information. Unless a categorical finding is rendered that the petitioners were instrumental for bringing Television reporters and made their wives to speak to the Television by producing acceptable legal evidence, this court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order imposing penalties on the petitioners. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. nvsri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To Assistant Commissioner of Police Armed Reserve, I Platoon 'A' Company, City Police Office Chennai-8 1 cc to Mr.S. Ravi, Advocate, Sr. 89677 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 89152 W.P.Nos.45971 and 45972 of 2006 (O.A.Nos.9028 and 9029 of 2000) SR (CO) kk 29/12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/