On perusal of the submissions, justice S S Sundar observed that Dharmar stood by his final report closing the counter case as mistake of fact as the case was a false one. The judge said that his action cannot be taken as a serious misconduct. The judge said the petitioner had explained to the second and third charges against him by stating that the deputy superintendent of police asked him not to go to the village due to emotional turbulence in the village after the murder. “It is a normal behaviour of any person from the victim’s family to complain about the inaction or inefficiency against the police official if something big happens. When serious charges are framed against the investigation officer alleging dereliction of duty, the allegations should be specific. In the present case, the allegations are too remote,” observed the judge.
Madras HC sets aside punishment of deceased cop
Kaushik Kannan | TNN | Updated: Jun 17, 2020, 11:36 IST+1AA
Madras high court (File photo)MADURAI: The Madras high court has set aside the punishment order against a deceased police inspector, who was removed from service on charges of not properly investigating a case in Virudhunagar district.
The court, which was hearing a petition filed by inspector P Dharmar in 2013, directed the authorities to treat the petitioner as retired on superannuation on August 31, 2013 and disburse all service and monetary benefits to his family members within eight weeks.
REMOVE ADS
The charges against Dharmar was that on September 27, 2012, when he was working at the Amathur police station, he received a complaint from a woman regarding assault and attempt to murder, in which 12 people were injured. Based on the complaint, a case was registered. A counter complaint was lodged in connection with this incident and he closed the same as a mistake of fact.
The second charge against Dharmar is that the first accused Madhavan in the counter case was involved in commission of murder in a case registered in 2013. It was believed that the petitioner’s inaction led to the murder.
The third charge was that even after the murder, the petitioner failed to conduct a proper investigation which led to subsequent crime where petrol bombs were recovered from Madhavan’s house.
Based on the report submitted by the inquiry officer, an order dated August 29, 2013 was passed removing Dharmar from service. He moved the high court Madurai bench the same year, challenging the order. However, he died during the pendency of the case, and his dependants were substituted as petitioners. On perusal of the submissions, justice S S Sundar observed that Dharmar stood by his final report closing the counter case as mistake of fact as the case was a false one. The judge said that his action cannot be taken as a serious misconduct.
The judge said the petitioner had explained to the second and third charges against him by stating that the deputy superintendent of police asked him not to go to the village due to emotional turbulence in the village after the murder.
“It is a normal behaviour of any person from the victim’s family to complain about the inaction or inefficiency against the police official if something big happens. When serious charges are framed against the investigation officer alleging dereliction of duty, the allegations should be specific. In the present case, the allegations are too remote,” observed the judge.
- Download
