Chennai: The Madras high court has set aside an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Chennai, removing a head constable from service, who allegedly helped an accused of pledging the stolen jewellery. Allowing a petition from C. Magesh, Justice T. Raja directed the police authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service along with all other consequential benefits.
Concurring with the submissions of P. Chandrasekar, counsel for the petitioner, the judge said it was seen from the judgment of the trial court that during the cross-examination, inspector of police, Vyasarpadi police station, deposed that the criminal case initiated against the petitioner was a false and foisted one and he was pressurised by the higher officials to implicate the petitioner. When such finding of the trial court was brought to the notice of the Special Government Pleader, he was unable to give any reply to the same. In addition thereto, on seeing a copy of the confession statement, Special Government Pleader fairly submitted that the said document was not containing the signature of the petitioner. Therefore, it would be highly impermissible for anyone to refer to and rely upon the said unsigned confession statement, the judge also added.
The judge said the admission made by the investigating officer clearly shows that the petitioner has been falsely implicated with mala fide intention by the investigating officer at the instance of the higher officer. Thus, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand, the judge added.
The judge said the law was well settled that if the department proceeds on the basis of confession statement made by the charged employee, his subsequent acquittal by the criminal court on the same set of charge could not have been ignored and such factum was lost sight of by the disciplinary authority. Besides, the confession statement relied upon by the department was not signed by the petitioner, thus, it was not known how the department by relying upon the so-called confession statement, which was not even signed by the petitioner, can accept such documents as a piece of admissible evidence to reach a conclusion that he was guilty of the charge.
Thus, since the petitioner had already been acquitted by the criminal court on the same set of the allegation, he was entitled to be reinstated in service, the judge added.
