Police Officials Making False Statements Before Criminal Court To Protect Fellow Officer Amounts To "Misconduct": Madras High Court

While upholding the disciplinary action against an erring police official, the Madras High Court heavily criticized the manner in which his fellow officials had given false statements before the trial court in the connected criminal case.

Justice SM Subramaniam remarked that police officials making false or incorrect statements before the criminal courts could be construed as "misconduct" under the Government Service Conduct Rules.

Contrary to the mahazer prepared and in violation of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, making a false or incorrect statement before the Criminal Court of Law is also the misconduct under the Government Servant Conduct Rules.....The respondents have to consider the manner of functioning of the Police Department Officials in the Control Room and initiate all appropriate actions to ensure that the departmental officials maintain good conduct at all circumstances and even before the Courts of Law while deposing or giving statements. 

The present petition was filed by a Grade I Police Constable against whom an order of punishment of postponement of increment for 3 years without cumulative effect was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

The case against the petitioner was that while attending duty in the Police Control Room on 14.11.2012, he was in a drunken mood and abused Special Sub Inspector of Police on duty.

Though the colleagues in the Control Room pacified the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner did not relent and therefore, the writ petitioner was taken to Government Hospital and drunkenness certificate was obtained and a criminal case was registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 353, 506(ii) IPC read with Section 4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

Simultaneously departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was also initiated.

The criminal case ended with an order of acquittal whereas the disciplinary authority proceeded with the departmental proceedings and conducted an enquiry and thereafter passed final orders on 05.02.2015 imposing the said penalty. An appeal against this order was subsequently rejected by the DIG.

The petitioner contended that the Disciplinary Authority had failed to take into consideration the order of acquittal passed by the competent criminal court and also erred in holding that the charges are held proved. When the charges against the Disciplinary authority and the criminal court were similar, the order of acquittal made by the competent criminal court was to be taken into consideration for the purpose of exonerating the writ petitioner from the departmental disciplinary proceedings, it was argued.

The court however disagreed with this contention and emphasized that the proceedings before the disciplinary authorities was different from that before a criminal court.

The preponderance of probabilities are expected to punish an employee and a moral turpitude is sufficient to punish an employee. Thus, the misconduct under the Conduct Rules and the procedures contemplated in the disciplinary proceedings, cannot be compared with the procedures to be followed in criminal proceedings before the Criminal Court of Law. Both the procedures are distinct and different. Thus the ground seeking exoneration from the departmental disciplinary proceedings based on the acquittal order by the Criminal Court of Law is untenable. 

The respondent authority contended that the allegations against the petitioner were serious. They also drew the attention of the court to the manner in which the witnesses had deposed before the court. The witnesses, who were all police officials, had turned hostile and acted contrary to the prosecution case.

The court took note of this fact and opined that the higher officials of the Police Department had to take a serious view of the matter.

"The manner in which the Police Department officials deposed before the Criminal Court reveals that they acted unbecoming of the public officials. They have joined together and decided to dilute the criminal proceedings in order to help the accused persons. Such a conduct of the public servant under no circumstances be appreciated by this Court."

The court also noted that there was no infirmity in the procedure followed during the disciplinary proceedings. There was also no excessiveness regarding the quantum of punishment. Thus, the court was not inclined to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: P.Arumugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and another

Case No: WP No.28271 of 2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 327

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.M.Vilasini for Mr.M.Ravi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader