Question paper leak: HC quashes punishment for constable

Treatment meted out to three, whose names were dropped by CBI, was different

MADURAI

After it was brought to light that the accused in the case of question paper leak of 2005 Grade II police constable recruitment examination were treated differently, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed the punishment for an accused, a police constable, taking into account the ground of discrimination.

The court was hearing the petition filed by M. Maruthupandi, who was arrayed as the 26th accused in the question paper leak case, in which 92 people were implicated.

The case was investigated by the CBI and in 2006 a final report was filed, wherein the name of the petitioner, a Grade was dropped. In the meantime, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The charges against him were held to be proved.

He was awarded a punishment of ‘postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect’. The challenge to the punishment order was rejected by the Director General of Police in 2016. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash the punishment order.

Justice M.S. Ramesh took cognisance of the fact that two other accused in the case, Dharmaraj and T. Radhakrishnan, were treated differently. With the absence of an explanation on this, the ground of discrimination gained significance, the court said.

The court was informed that the CBI had dropped the names of the other two accused too from the final report and no departmental action was initiated against Radhakrishnan.

A mere involvement of the petitioner in the case prompted the State to frame charges against him. While Dhramaraj was given the punishment of ‘black mark’, the involvement of Radhakrishnan was ignored and he was not placed under suspension like the petitioner, the court said.

This court said that it was of the affirmed view that the punishment awarded to the petitioner could not be sustained on the ground of discrimination. The court quashed the punishment order and said that the petitioner was entitled to all monetary and promotional benefits, which he would have been otherwise entitled to in the absence of the punishment.