Cop can’t have lawyer during disciplinary probe: HC

Chennai: A police inspector who is facing robbery and dacoity charges and is suspended, failed to earn a reprieve from the Madras high court, which declined to permit him to have an advocate represent him in the departmental inquiry.
Justice S Vaidyanathan, rejecting the plea of S Gopinathapandian, further directed the authorities to proceed with the inquiry on day-to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond seven working days at any point of time, and to bring the issue to a logical conclusion.
Gopinathpandian was inspector of police, control room in Dindigul, when he suspended after two cases were registered against him for robbery and dacoity. A departmental inquiry was initiated to probe the charges involving major penalties.
Citing that the inquiry officer was a law graduate, he approached the superintendent of police seeking permission to engage a lawyer to cross-examine the list of witnesses. As it was rejected, he filed the present petition.
Counsel for Gopinathpandian contended that since the charges levelled were serious, assistance of an advocate was required and that he needed to defend himself effectively in domestic inquiry. He also cited a list of Supreme Court judgments in his favour.
Rejecting the plea, however, Justice Vaidyanathan relied on an apex court ruling which said courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing how the factual situation fits in with the case on hand. “One additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases,” he said, citing the 2002 verdict.