Madras High Court imposes fine on DCP for issuing false memo to SI

Chennai: The Madras High Court imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Chennai for issuing a wrong and false charge memo to a Sub-Inspector of Police, due to which he was denied even his pension and that ruined his family with irreparable loss, including that of his ailing wife.

“After issuing the charge memo, as he reached superannuation on May 31, 2017, he was not permitted to retire from service. He was not even paid pension and retirement benefits causing a huge problem to him even to maintain his family. His ailing wife also died on November 24, 2017 for want of money for her treatment. In view of the wrong and false charge memo, he was denied even his pension and that has ruined his life. Considering the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that it is a clear case where a huge cost has to be imposed. However, in view of the repeated requests made by the Special government pleader, this court restricts the cost at Rs 10,000 to be paid by the Deputy Commissioner of Police to the petitioner”, said Justice T. Raja.

Allowing a petition from the Sub-Inspector of Police V. Muthuveerappan, the judge quashed the charge memo and directed the authorities to permit the petitioner to retire from service on his superannuation. He should be paid all consequential benefits, the judge added.

The allegation against the petitioner in the charge memo was that to gain more marks in the Promotion Board, bogus Annual Confidential Records with the grading for overall performance as “Outstanding” was prepared by him and submitted to the Board.

Denying the allegation, the petitioner contended that when the personal files of the police personnel were all confidential in nature and they were maintained and kept in personal safe custody of the officers, there was no chance for the petitioner to have access of the ADR. 

Therefore, the allegation made against the petitioner in the charge memo that he has tampered with the personal files was beyond the scope of any imagination.
In his counter affidavit, the DCP submitted that after issuing the charge memo, now the authorities have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not committed any tampering of ACR.

The judge said, “This court is stunned to see how such a charge memo has been issued against the petitioner by the authorities, when they themselves admit in the counter affidavit that there is no tampering. In view of the admission made by the authorities, the petition deserves to be allowed”.