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.