Madras HC rejects Ex Cop's plea to revoke dismissal
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (HC) rejected an appeal by a Former Inspector of Police challenging his dismissal from the Tamil Nadu Police service.
K Tamilarasan served as a police inspector of Armed Reserve Police (AR) in Pudukkottai since November 17, 1998.
Following alleged immoral conduct, an Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) held an inquiry on the orders from the then Deputy Inspector General of Police (Tiruchirapalli Range), who had also issued a memorandum to him (Tamilarasan).
Among four charges, it was found that Tamilarasan had asked his wife on October 30, 2001 to keep his daughter ready to share the bed with him.
Later, he attempted to rape his daughter, who attempted to commit suicide by consuming pesticide unable to tolerate the immoral conduct of her father.
Another charge against him was that he had compelled his wife to share bed with his superior officials in order to get promotion, when he was serving as a Reserved Sub-Inspector of Police during 1996. When she refused, Tamilarasan shot her on the right thigh with an air gun.
He also allowed a Head Constable and three other police constables to share bed with his wife in the police residential quarters at Pudukkottai and enjoyed the malicious scenes in a drunken mood.
His wife committed suicide on the same day by self immolation, unable to tolerate the atrocities meted out to her.
Also read the related stories
Madras High Court Bench here has come down heavily on a dismissed police inspector
The Madras High Court Bench here has come down heavily on a dismissed police inspector, accused of attempting to rape his 18-year-old elder daughter besides forcing his wife to share bed with his superior officers as well as subordinates eventually leading to her death by suicide.
Rejecting a writ appeal filed by him against his dismissal, a Division Bench of Justices D. Murugesan and S. Nagamuthu said that the gravity of the allegations levelled against the appellant shocked the conscience of the court.
They were of the view that no punishment other than removal from service would meet the ends of justice.
The judges said: “Here is a case where the appellant has shown animal behaviour in making an attempt to rape his own teenage daughter… Here is a case where the appellant has allowed four police constables to rape his wife and he witnessed the same in drunken state as though he was witnessing a cultural programme. Such a man does not deserve to continue in the disciplined force.”
The appellant, K. Tamilarasan, worked as an Inspector with the Armed Reserve police in Pudukottai since November 17, 1998. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchi Range, issued a charge memorandum to him on April 1, 2002, levelling as many as four charges and appointed an Additional Superintendent of Police to hold an enquiry.
The first charge related to highly immoral and unbecoming conduct on the part of the appellant in having compelled his wife to share bed with his superior officers, in order to get promotion, while he was serving as a Reserved Sub-Inspector of police in 1996. When she refused, he shot her on the right thigh with an air gun.
The second charge related to allowing a head constable and three constables to share bed with his wife in the police residential quarters at Pudukottai and enjoying the malicious scenes in an inebriated mood.
The third charge was for allegedly attempting to rape his daughter who later attempted suicide by consuming rat poison.
The fourth charge was that he telephoned his wife on October 30, 2001 and directed her to keep their daughter ready to share the bed with him.
Unable to digest the atrocities, the woman set fire to herself on the same day. Two cases, one for rape and another for abetment to suicide were registered on the basis of her dying declaration.
After completion of the departmental enquiry, the DIG dismissed him from service on August 15, 2003. However, the trial court on December 23, 2005, acquitted him from the criminal cases because both his daughters had turned hostile. His subsequent plea to reinstate him in service was rejected and hence the present case.
Writing the judgement, Mr. Justice Murugesan pointed out that the appellant’s daughters deposed against him in the departmental enquiry. But after two years they turned hostile before the criminal court.
“They would have thought of supporting their father so as to avoid him getting convicted. For that reason, evidence given by them before the enquiry officer cannot be rejected.”