Take Criminal Action Against Police Officials Receiving 'Mamool': Madras High Court

While dismissing a retired sub-Inspector's plea challenging the order of punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years, the Madras High Court expressed its concern over police officers taking bribes and thereby affecting the welfare of people.

In the present case, the writ petitioner was recruited as Gr-II Police Constable in the year 1977 and was promoted up to the level of Special Sub Inspector of Police and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, in 2010. While he was in service, a charge memo was issued with an allegation that he was receiving mamool of Rs.50/- twice a week from one Mr.Ravi, who was running a bunk shop nearby TASMAC Shop. An enquiry officer was appointed, who, after enquiry, submitted that the charge against the petitioner was proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years and the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments for three years. The appeals preferred by the petitioner were rejected. Hence, he approached the High Court.

The main contention of the petitioner was that he had an unblemished record of service for about 35 years and the charges are based on a certain false complaint. He also contended that the enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner and that the documents relied on were not supplied. He also submitted that the punishment was imposed during the fag end of retirement and thus, such a punishment cannot be implemented. He relied on a circular issued by the Director-General of Police dated 27.05.2010 wherein it was stated that the disciplinary authorities should ensure that the punishment imposed could be implemented during the period of service itself.

The respondents represented by Special Government Pleader opposed this contention by stating that the punishment imposed was reduction in time scale of pay by three stages and that it was imposed when the petitioner was in service. Therefore, it is implementable and the monetary value equivalent to that of the reduction of time scale is to be recovered towards the punishment. Thus, the circular in question was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

He further submitted that the punishment was imposed after conducting a detailed enquiry and thus there was no infirmity. As such, the petition was liable to be rejected.

While dismissing the petition, the court observed that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution was to ensure that the process through which a decision was taken was in consonance with the rules in force and not the decision itself. In the present case, the court did not find any infirmity with reference to the quantum of punishment imposed.

The court went on to highlight the ill effects of bribery in the present scenario. It observed that the police officers receiving mamool allowed encroachments and other illegalities. These caused huge nuisance and inconvenience to people at large and infringes the rights of people. 

The court added that even if the higher officials were aware of these offences, they made little attempts to minimize the same. In most of the cases, only departmental actions were initiated and on some occasions, minor punishments were imposed.

The court also suggested that the Anti-Corruption Wings can be strengthened and periodical surprise raids/inspections could be conducted at public offices. Further, the assets and liabilities of the authorities could be periodically verified and disproportional wealth could be monitored. The court added that appropriate instructions/guidelines could be issued to the Government Offices. Competent authorities could take suggestions/expert opinions in the field of Anti Corruption and issue guidelines to deal with corrupt practices in Public Departments.

Case Title: K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others

Case No: WP No. 2507 of 2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267

Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr.R.Sampathkumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mrs.S.Anitha, Special Government Pleader

Click here to read/download the judgment