Cops expected to have ‘good relationship with public’: Karnataka HC upholds compulsory retirement of constable who assaulted shop owner

Suresh was issued a chargesheet in 2003, under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary) Rules, 1965. It was alleged that on February 1, 2003, he went to a small shop at AB Shetty Circle, Mangalore Town, owned by Oman Kuttan and demanded Rs 100. When he refused to pay, Suresh allegedly abused him in filthy language, assaulted him and intimidated him to take his life by showing a knife. The police filed a criminal case against him.

Another charge levelled against him was causing public disturbance, committing misconduct, and exhibiting indiscipline in the department.

Suresh argued before the Karnataka High Court that the disciplinary authority’s order imposing compulsory retirement is arbitrary and discriminatory. There was no evidence or material to prove the charge, he argued. Moreover, the trial court acquitted him in the criminal case registered against him.

Court findings

The bench in its order emphasised that personnel working in police departments are expected to maintain a high degree of conduct and they are expected to have good relationship with the public.

The court noted that the inquiry officer before the disciplinary authority had examined 11 witnesses and marked 9 documents. However, no evidence was let in on behalf of the petitioner.

The court in the order said, “No strict rules of evidence are applicable to prove the charge in a departmental proceedings and charge could be proved on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. A perusal of the enquiry report would indicate that the Enquiry Officer has based his findings on evidence and material on record.”

The bench said, “When the first charge of demanding an amount and abusing with filthy language, threatening life showing knife is proved, the disciplinary authority is justified in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement.”

The court also rejected Suresh’s defence citing acquittal in the criminal case. It said, “The judgment was passed as all the witnesses turned hostile. Moreover, acquittal in a criminal case on the same set of facts is not a bar for initiation of departmental proceedings.”