Deputy Commissioner of Police fined for issuing false memo to Sub-Inspector
By Express News Service | Published: 03rd December 2017 08:15 AM |
Last Updated: 03rd December 2017 10:39 AM | A+A A- |
Image used for representational purpose only
CHENNAI: Accepting the submission that lower-level police officers cannot have access to their annual confidential reports (ACRs), the Madras High Court has quashed a charge-memo issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Chennai and imposed costs of `10,000 on him for issuing a wrong and false charge memo against a sub-inspector, which denied him retirement benefits and he lost his wife due to lack of funds to treat her.
Justice T Raja set aside the charge-memo while allowing a writ petition from V Muthuveerappan, an SI, last week. “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 there was no tampering. In view of the admission made by the authorities, the petition deserves to be allowed”, the judge said.
The charge against the SI was that he had tampered with the ACR relating to him so as to gain more marks from the promotion board.
The petitioner denied the allegation and submitted that when the personal files of police personnel were all confidential in nature and they were maintained and kept in personal safe custody of officers, there was no chance for petitioner to access the ACR. Petitioner’s senior counsel contended that because of the charge-memo, Muthuveerappan could not retire from service after attaining superannuation on May 31 last and the retirement benefits were not disbursed.
He could not spend money for treatment of his ailing wife, who died on November 24 last, he added. In view of the wrong and false charge memo, petitioner was denied his pension and that has ruined his family with irreparable loss.
“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 request made by the Special Government Pleader, this court restricts the cost at `10,000 to be paid by theDCP to the petitioner,” the judge added.ww
