Madras HC upholds dismiss order challenged by police officer who committed dacoity

Chennai: The Madras high court has upheld an order of the authorities, dismissing a police officer from service for allegedly bringing disrepute to the police force by posing himself along with four other police personnel as CBI officials and committing dacoity.

A division bench comprising Justices Huluvadi G.Ramesh and K.Kalyanasundaram dismissed the appeal filed by R.Paramasivam, challenging an order of a single judge, dismissing his petition against his dismissal from service.

Paramasivam while serving as Havildar in Tamil Nadu Special Police, V Battalion, was served with a charge memo dated November 9, 2002. The charge was that he along with sub-inspector of police and other three constables, posing themselves as CBI officials, committed dacoity on May 13, 2002 and thereby brought disrepute to the police force.

Pursuant to the charge memo, an enquiry was conducted and he was imposed a punishment of dismissal from service.

The appeal and further revision against the order were dismissed. The single judge also confirmed the order of dismissal by observing that the evidence cannot be re-appreciated as an appellate authority.

Rejecting the submission of senior counsel, appearing for the appellant that all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet were not examined before the enquiry officer, the bench said it was seen that two witnesses were examined to prove the charge against the appellant and it was well settled law that all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet need not be examined during the enquiry.

The single judge in a well considered order held that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings were totally different and in the departmental proceedings, the department was required to establish the guilt on some evidence, but in the criminal proceedings, the prosecution has to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. “In the light of the above fact, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the single judge”, the bench added.