R ELANGO Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the year 1996, the petitioner was a Head-Constable in Thanjavur District. Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur by his proceedings in PR.No,78 of 1997 framed charge against the petitioner under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D & A) Rules. According to the charge, on 13.12.1996 the petitioner escorted two prisoners from Central Prison, Trichirapalli for being produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tanjore. After they were so produced as per the directions of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner along with another Constable escorted the said two accused back to the Central Prison. When they were produced before the Jail authorities, it was found that both the prisoners were in drunken state.

(2.) FOR having allowed the prisoners to take illicit arrack while in custody, the petitioner was charged. Since the petitioner denied the same, an enquiry Officer was appointed. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pattukottai- the Enquiry officer, after holding enquiry, submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police holding the charge proved. During the enquiry, as many as three witnesses were examined and a number of documents were exhibited. Admittedly, the petitioner was allowed to cross examine the witnesses. The petitioner, finally submitted a written explanation wherein he had stated that the prisoners while being brought back to Trichirapalli, wanted water to drink and therefore, they were taken to a nearby tea stall where they took water. The explanation further proceeds to say that the petitioner never allowed the prisoners to take illicit arrack at all. He would further state that the prisoners had taken some tablets and the same would have had the effect of alcohol. It is further stated that it was also possible that without the knowledge of the petitioner, the alcohol would have been mixed up in the drinking water. In any event, according to the explanation, to the knowledge of the petitioner, the prisoners did not take any other intoxicating substance at all. The said explanation was rejected. The enquiry Officer based on the oral as well as documentary evidence, held that the petitioner is guilty of the charge. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur by his order dated 13.07.1998 imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect.

(3.) IN answer to the same, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the appeal was not disposed of within six months from the date of presentation of the appeal, as per Section 20(2)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the petitioner filed original application within the statutory period. Thus according to the learned senior counsel, the writ petition is maintainable. He would further submit that in view of Section 19, Sub clause 4 of the Act, the order passed by the appellate authority is non-est in the eye of law and so, the said order would not stand in the way of the petitioner from further prosecuting this writ petition.