Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.2398 of 1991 which quashed the dismissal of R. Ramalingam, a Head Constable, and directed his reinstatement without back wages but with service and pensionary benefits. The department challenged this before the Supreme Court. On the night intervening 15th/16th August 1987 at Thiruvaiyaru Police Station, one Meenambal came enquiring about her husband's custody. The respondent allegedly misbehaved and molested her. A constable came on her shouting, and an Inspector of Police rescued her. A report was sent to the Superintendent of Police, who referred the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur (Rural) for preliminary enquiry. The D.S.P. recommended disciplinary action, and charges were framed alleging highly reprehensible conduct unbecoming of a police officer in molesting Meenambal with intention to rape. The D.S.P., Crime Record Bureau held a disciplinary enquiry, and based on his report, the respondent was dismissed on 11/3/1988. His appeal and review were dismissed, and a mercy petition to the Government was rejected. The respondent then approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal contending that the charge memo was issued by the D.S.P., not the appointing authority Superintendent of Police; that the Revenue Divisional Officer should have conducted the preliminary enquiry; that a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was not supplied; and that preliminary enquiry statements were not given. The Tribunal allowed the application holding that the D.S.P., being subordinate to the appointing authority, was not competent to hold the disciplinary enquiry; that non-supply of the enquiry officer's report caused serious prejudice; that non-supply of preliminary enquiry statements vitiated the enquiry; and that the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities lacked reasons. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the first two grounds were unsustainable in view of Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappa and Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, noting that the dismissal order was prior to Ramzan Khan v. Union of India. It declined to examine the correctness of the remaining grounds. The Court observed that the matter should go back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision according to law, to be heard by a Bench of which at least one is a Judicial Member. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry - Jurisdiction of Appointing Authority - Not mentioned - Tribunal quashed dismissal holding that Deputy Superintendent of Police, being subordinate to appointing authority, lacked competence to hold enquiry; Supreme Court found this ground unsustainable in view of Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappa; matter remitted for fresh consideration. Held that Tribunal's finding on DSP's competence was unsustainable. B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Supply of Enquiry Officer's Report - Not mentioned - Tribunal held non-supply of enquiry officer's report caused prejudice and denied reasonable opportunity; Supreme Court observed this ground unsustainable in view of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, noting dismissal order was prior to Ramzan Khan v. Union of India; matter remitted. Held that non-supply of enquiry report ground not sustainable. C) Service Law - Natural Justice - Supply of Preliminary Enquiry Statements - Not mentioned - Tribunal found non-supply of preliminary enquiry witness statements vitiated enquiry; Supreme Court did not adjudicate correctness and remitted for fresh decision by a Bench with judicial member. Held that matter remitted for fresh consideration on remaining grounds. D) Service Law - Administrative Law - Reasoned Orders - Not mentioned - Tribunal held disciplinary and appellate orders lacking reasons were bad; Supreme Court declined to examine correctness and remitted matter to Tribunal. Held that matter remitted for fresh decision according to law.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal correctly quashed the dismissal of a Head Constable on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of Deputy Superintendent of Police, non-supply of enquiry officer's report, non-supply of preliminary enquiry statements, and absence of reasons in disciplinary and appellate orders
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and remitted the matter to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for fresh decision according to law, to be heard by a Bench of which at least one is a Judicial Member. No costs.
Law Points
- Grounds of DSP's lack of jurisdiction as subordinate to appointing authority and non-supply of enquiry officer's report held unsustainable in view of Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappa and Managing Director
- ECIL v. B. Karunakar
- matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh decision according to law by a Bench with at least one Judicial Member
