HC reinstates sacked Puducherry constable

The Madras High Court has reinstated a Puducherry police constable, sacked within six days of registration of an FIR against him for a 'petty offence.'

Justice R Mahadevan ordered Constable V Shanmugam's reinstatement holding that his sacking was an "arbitrary exercise of power."

Allowing a petition by the constable, who has received several meritorious honours including the Rajiv Gandhi Award in 2016, the court set aside the April 6 order of the Puducherry's senior superintendent of police dismissing him from the service.

The judge in his order yesterday noted that the petitioner while investigating various cases had brought to light the 'involvement' of many police personnel in cases of serious moral turpitude, including lottery and theft cases.
 

Accordingly, Constable Shanmugam, in his petition, had made specific allegations of malafides by other police personnel and attempts by them to take revenge against him by implicating him in false case, the judge had noted.

The judge said even though a cloud of suspicion was cast against the constable's character by implicating him in an offence and creating a stigma for his career spanning over 19 years, the inaction of the state against similarly accused officers, reflected nothing but "capricious, discriminative and monarchical exercise of power by officers in higher rank."

The petitioner had been a part of the Special Task Force, Crime Team (South) and solved many cases of murder, theft and lottery among others.

According to him, he had earned several enemies in the department as during the course of his investigation in many cases, it came to light that several police personnel were allegedly involved in crimes.

The petitioner had submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of a few police officers.

Setting aside the dismissal order, the judge said the relevant rules had not been followed in deciding constable's dismissal.

There were no materials to show that a preliminary enquiry was conducted and to support the allegations made against the petitioner.

Therefore, in absence of any material, the decision of the respondent to dispense with the inquiry was nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power, the judge said.

He said it was also necessary to bring on record that anyone can make allegations, but the same must be substantiated with materials and established in court of law.

This court was in full consonance with the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that just because an FIR has been registered, the petitioner should not have been dismissed in such a manner.

Referring to the petitioner's charges of malafide and others, the judge said these cannot be ignored, more so after perusal of the case file, in which, baseless allegations without any materials, had been made by many officers, with an intent to get him dismissed for the reasons better known to themselves.