He was demoted for not attending to calls made on wireless
The Madras High Court Bench here has come to the rescue of a police head constable who was demoted, by two stages, to the post of grade-II constable for allegedly not attending a call received through the wireless communication system when he was on duty at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Kulithalai in Karur district.
Disposing of a writ petition filed by him, Justice M. Venugopal directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) challenging the demotion order passed by the Karur Superintendent of Police on January 26, 2005.
The ADGP was ordered to dispose of the appeal at the earliest as the petitioner was about to retire from service within four months.
The judge also directed the ADGP to dispose of the petitioner's appeal in a dispassionate manner uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the court. He was also asked to afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation before taking a decision in accordance with law and by following the principles of natural justice.
“Not part of my work”
In his affidavit, the petitioner, V. Ponnambalam, said that he had been serving the police department ever since he joined it as a grade- II constable in 1975. He was working as a Writer in the DSP's office at the time of the alleged occurrence and it was not part of his work to attend to calls coming through wireless communication system when there were other police personnel specifically assigned for the job.
Claiming that he was not in good terms with another policeman who was a close relative of the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner alleged that he had been demoted only at the instigation of the former.
He also alleged that the departmental enquiry which resulted in the demotion order was prolonged for a very long number of years.
Rejecting the allegations, the Superintendent of Police said that the enquiry was delayed owing to the petitioner's non cooperation.
He also alleged that the constable did not avail opportunities provided to him to defend the charges before the disciplinary authority and even refused to file a mercy petition before the Inspector General of Police after the imposition of punishment.