Director General of Police, & Ors Vs. G.Dasayan  INSC 37 (28 January 1998)
Agrawal, K. Venkataswami, A.P. Misra
28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998.
Mr. Justice S.C.Agrawal Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami Hon'ble Mr. Justice
A.P.Misra A. Mariarputham, Adv. for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advs. for
the appellants. S. Muralidhar, Adv. for the Respondent
J U D
E M E N T
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
counsel on both sides.
respondent was working as Police Constable in Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu.
He was proceeded departmentally for the following charges:-
Highly reprehensible conduct in having demanded and exrtracted gold jewels weighing
31 grams from one T.Pitchandi Asari, Thangam Jewellers, Alexandria Press Road, Nagercoil,
under coercion on 28.5.1983 with other members of crime detective party.
In having not issued with any receipt to the said T.Pitchandi Asari, or in not
having seized the said jewells under proper mahazar; and
In not having showed the jewels in any of the crime investigated by the Crime
Highly reprehensible conduct as a member of Crime Detective Party;
not having shown the arrest of one Hentry Victor and Shahul Hameed concerned in
CCS. No. 257/83 under Section 547/380 IPC which was registered on 12.5.1983 on
the complaint of T. Dennison and keeping the accused for number of days without
In having not recovered the property under proper mahazar and not properly
accounted for the cloths and money recovered from various places in Tamil Nadu.
In having charged the actual properties recovered in Cr. No. 257/83 under
Sections 457, 380 IPC by changing the high quality cloths into cheaper quality
of cloths while sending them in Form 95 to the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nagercoil, the receipt of which was acknowledged on 22.7.1983 in
R.P. No. 490 pf 1983."
respondent was tried along with one Head Constable and two Police Constables.
Regular enquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thuckalay (Kanyakumari
District), who found that the first count of the charge is proved but not the
second one. In the meanwhile, the respondent was transferred to Tirunelveli
District. The other co-deliquents were also transferred to another neighbouring
District. The Disciplinary Authority for the respondent, at the relevant time,
was the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, who concurred with the Report of
the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by an
Order dated 21.4.87. The appeal filed by the respondent to the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Tirunelveli, was dismissed on 9.12.87. The Review filed to
the Director General of Police was also rejected on 5.2.90.
the respodent moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras by filing O.A. NO. 446 of 1991. The
Tribunal by an order dated 6.5.96 set aside the order of dismissal mainly on
the ground that the Enquiry Report was not furnished to the respondent herein
before the impugned order was passed and that the Enquiry Report was not
furnished to the respondent herein before the impugned order was passed and
that the authority competent to pass the order of dismissal was the
Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. Where the respondent was
working when the charge was framed. According to the Tribunal, the transfer was
for administrative purpose pending Enquiry and he should have been
re-transferred after the enquiry was over and the final order should have been
passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. One other ground
also was given by the Tribunal for setting aside the order of dismissal,
namely, that the co-delinquents were let off without any punishment except the
Head Constable, who was only compulsorily retired. Though the charges were
identical, the punishment imposed, according to the Tribunal, being
discriminatory cannot be sustained.
by the order or the Tribunal, the present appeal by special leave has been
preferred by the appellants.
learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the first ground of the
Tribunal for setting aside the order of dismissal is no longer sustainable in
view of the judgment of this Court in Managing Director, 727. In that case, a
Constitution Bench of this Court held that the ruling in Ramzan Khan's case.
Therefore, the order passed in this case being on 21.4.87 the law laid down in Ramzan
Khan's case will have no application and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal
on that score cannot be supported.
second ground that the Superintendent of Policy, Tirunelveli District, was not
the competent authority, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
Tribunal was not right in assuming that the transfer was for administrative
purpose and during the pendency of Enquiry as the Police Standing Orders
enabled the transfer of Constable of one District to another District. The
relevant PSO was produced which reads that a Police Constable is liable to
serve anywhere in the State. The order of transfer from Kanyakumari District to
Tirunvelveli District at the relevant time was not challenged. Therefore, this
ground of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of dismissal cannot also be
supported. The third ground that the co-delinqunets except the Head Constable
were let o ff though the charges were identical, it is stated by the learned
counsel for the appellants that the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the
findings of the Enquiry officer so far as those two delinquents were concerned.
However, the Head Constable, Who was also charged along with the respondent,
was compulsorily retired by the Disciplinary Authority.
learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while agreeing with the
contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on the first two grounds,
submitted that the order of dismissal at any rate cannot be sustained and if at
all an order of compulsory retirement as was made in the case of the Head
Constable, who was tried along with the respondent, has to be imposed.
have perused the order of the Tribunal and the relevant documents. We find
merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. A t the same
time, were are of the view that as pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondent that a punishment of compulsory retirement in the case of the
respondent as well would meet the ends of justice on the facts and
circumstances of this case.
we set aside the order of the Tribunal and in the place of order of dismissal
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the order of compulsory retirement is
substituted. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order no
order as to costs.