High Court · 2025

W.P.No.12303 of 2015IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.No.12303 of 2015J.Tamilmani... Petitioner Vs.1. The Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Coimbatore City.2. The Additional Director General of Police, (Law & Order), Kamaraj Salai, Chennai – 600 004.3. The Director General of Police (Law & Order) Kamaraj Salai, Chennai – 600 004.... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records leading to the issue of the impugned order of Penalty Rc No.225227/AP.I(1)/2013 dated 17.02.2015 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and void and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. For Petitioner: Mr.K.K.Sivashanmugam & K.S.SrigiriprasathFor Respondents: Mr.V.Nanmaran, Additional Government PleaderO R D E RThe brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as under:-Page No.1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12303 of 20151.1. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as 'Grade-II Police Constable,' in Tamil Nadu Police Force, on 06.01.1986. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of 'Head Constable' in the year 2002 and further promoted to the post of 'Sub-Inspector' on 18.02.2005. While the petitioner was working as 'Sub-Inspector of Police' in Coimbatore, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo dated 24.11.2020, containing a solitary charge, which reads as under:-xGf;fKk;. fz;zpaKk;. fl;Lg;ghLk; epiwe;j fhty;Jiwapy;“ cjtp Ma;thsuhf gzpg[hpa[k; jkpH;kzp vd;gtuhfpa ckf;Fk;. Re;jhp vd;gtUf;Fk; jpUkzk; eilbgw;W FHe;ijfSld; rp';fhey;Yhh; fhtyh; FoapUg;g[ vz;/v!;2?y; FoapUe;J bfhz;L mnj FoapUg;gpy; 92 vd;w vz;Zs;s tPl;oy; FoapUe;j fhty; Ma;thsh; jpU/Rg;g[ vd;gtuJ kidtp jpUkjp/ rhe;jp vd;gtUld; jfhj cwt[ itj;J jkpH;ehL fhty; rhh;epiy gzpahsh;fs; elj;ij tpjp 1964?y; tpjp 23(2) I kPwpa xG';fPdr; bray”1.2. In response to the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charge. Thereupon, an Enquiry Officer was appointed for conducting oral enquiry into the charge levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after having conducted the enquiry, submitted his report holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner as ‘proved’. A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the petitioner and thereafter, on receiving the further explanation from the petitioner, the Respondent No.1 herein passed orders dated 03.07.2013, imposing the punishment of “postponement of next increment for a period of three Page No.2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12303 of 2015years which shall operate to postpone his future increments (with cumulative effect)”. By the said order, the suspension of the petitioner was also revoked with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent No.2 under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) on 05.08.2013. The said appeal was refused to be entertained by the Respondent No.2, on the ground that the said appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, by an order dated 11.08.2014. 1.3. While so, the Respondent No.3 herein exercised the power under Section 15-A(1)(ii) of the Rules, 1955 and proposed to suo motu review the punishment imposed on the petitioner and proposed to enhance the said punishment and accordingly issued a show cause notice dated 20.08.2014. At that stage, the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.No.24837 of 2014, challenging the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the Respondent No.2 as well as the show cause notice issued by the third respondent dated 20.08.2014. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, having examined the matter in detail, came to the conclusion that the appeal that was filed by the petitioner under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1955 was well within the time, but the same erroneously refused to be entertained by the Respondent No.2. Accordingly, this court disposed of the said writ petition in W.P.No.24837 of 2014 vide order 12.09.2014, duly setting aside the order dated 11.08.2014 and remanded Page No.3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12303 of 2015the matter back to the Respondent No.2 for considering the same on merits while restraining the Respondent No.3 from proceeding further, pursuant to the show cause notice dated 20.08.2014 on the ground that the same cannot be allowed to be proceeded with before the appeal remedy was exhausted by the petitioner herein. 1.4. It was pursuant to the said order passed by this court, the Respondent No.2 herein, entertained the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the original order of punishment dated 03.07.2013, and issued a show cause notice dated 29.11.2014, proposing to enhance the punishment already imposed on the petitioner on the ground that the same is not commensurate with the delinquency committed by the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 19.12.2014. It is on considering the said explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Respondent No.2 herein passed orders bearing RC.No.225227/AP.I(1/2013) dated 17.02.2015, enhancing the punishment of “postponement of increments for three years with cumulative effect” into that of “compulsory retirement from the date of receipt of the said order” and accordingly disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the said order dated 17.02.2015, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition.2. Heard Mr.K.K.Sivashanmugam and K.S.Srigiriprasath learned counsel for Page No.4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12303 of 2015the petitioner and Mr.V.Nanmaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.3. The charge that was levelled against the petitioner, as noted herein above, is grave in nature. From the perusal of the material on record, it is evident that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence that was brought on record in support of the charge. The Enquiry Officer held the charge as ‘proved’. The Respondent No.1/ Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Though vaguely it was contended that the husband of Mrs.Shanthi, who was working as a ‘Inspector of Police’ had developed some prejudice against the petitioner resulting in foisting a false case against the petitioner, no material is placed on record either before the Enquiry Officer or before this court in support of such contention. The allegation against the petitioner is, having an illicit intimacy with Mrs.Shanthi, who is the wife of a colleague employee rather superior of the petitioner. The husband of Mrs.Shanthi and her children were also examined during the course of enquiry before the Enquiry Officer. Though, Mrs.Shanthi was also examined as a witness in support of the charge, for the reasons best known, the petitioner has not chosen to cross-examine her, thereby accepting the evidence adduced by her before the Enquiry Officer. Thus, it is not open for the petitioner to contest against the charge.Page No.5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12303 of 20154. The Appellate Authority, while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner, took notice of all these facts and came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner as proved. In the considered view of this court also, there is no substantial contest by the petitioner against the charge levelled against him.5. Then, next question that would arise for consideration is whether the punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed on the petitioner is commensurate with the charge levelled against the petitioner or not? In this regard, it would be necessary to examine as to whether the Respondent No.2/ Appellate Authority has exercised the appellate power independently on due application of mind to the facts of the case or not. In this regard, it would be necessary to notice that the reason assigned by the Respondent No.2, while proposing to commence the punishment through show cause notice dated 29.11.2014 are almost identical to the reasons assigned by the Respondent No.3 while exercising the review power under Rule 15-A(1)(ii) of the Rules, 1955 by issuing show cause notice dated 20.08.2014. By the date of consideration of the appeal by the Respondent No.2, the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.3 through show cause notice dated 20.08.2014 were remained stayed by this court. Page No.6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12303 of 20156. In this connection, it would be necessary to look into the reasoning assigned by the Respondent No.3 as well as the Respondent No.2 in the respective show cause notices dated 20.08.2014 and 29.11.2014, while proposing to enhance the punishment against the petitioner. Reasons assigned by Respondent No.3Reasons assigned by Respondent No.25. In exercise of the powers delegated to me under Rule 15(A)(i)(ii) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules, 1955, I have taken up suo-motu review of this PR. I have carefully gone through the PR file and other connected records. The charge has been amply proved based on the evidence Pws 1, 7 to 12 and Exhibits 1, 2, 9 to 16. I feel that the punishment awarded is not commensurate with the gravity of charge. Hence, I disagree with the orders passed by the punishing authority, as the delinquency committed by the delinquent officer is a serious one and I propose to enhance the punishment. In the above circumstances,Thiru.J.Tamilmani, SI, Thanjavur District formerly of Coimbatore City is directed to show cause as to why the punishment already awarded to him should not be enhanced commensurate to the gravity of delinquency.7. Based on the evidences of PW 1, 7 to 12 and Exhibits 1, 2, 9 to 16, the delinquency of illegal intimacy with Tmt Santhi wife of R.Subbu, Inspector of Police, committed by Tr.J.Tamilmani is correctly held proved which is gross violation of Rule 23(2) of Tamil Nadu, Subordinate Police Officers Contact Rules, 1964 for which severe punishment can be awarded as per TNPSS (D&A) Rules1955. In this aspect, I considered that the punishment awarded by the punishing authority is less and not commensurating with the delinquency committed. Hence I propose to enhance the punishment already awarded.Page No.7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12303 of 20157. From the perusal of the above reasons assigned in both the show cause notices, it is apparent that the same are identical in nature, including the language used thereunder. From the above, this court is constrained to draw an inference that the Respondent No.2 herein, who is subordinate to the Respondent No.3 herein, working from the office of the Respondent No.3, is carried away by the views of the Respondent No.3, while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1955 and obviously without having any option the Respondent No.2 proceeded to enhance the punishment against the petitioner herein. Thus, it is apparent that the Respondent No.2 has not exercised the appellate power conferred upon him independently but passed the impugned order under the direct or indirect influence of the Respondent No.3 herein. Therefore, on this ground alone, this court is inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 17.02.2015, and is inclined to remand the matter back to the Respondent No.2 for considering the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh.8. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings bearing Rc No.225227/ AP.I(1)/2013 dated 17.02.2015 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent No.2 for considering the appeal dated 05.08.2013 filed by the petitioner afresh by duly affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Page No.8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12303 of 2015petitioner.9. Pursuant to the impugned proceedings, the petitioner was already retired from service on compulsory retirement in the month of February 2015 itself and in view of the same, the status of the petitioner shall continue as is as on the date and the same shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Respondent No.2 on remand. The Respondent No.2 is further directed to pass orders as directed above on remand, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.17.06.2025skrIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes / NoPage No.9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12303 of 2015MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.skrTo1. The Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Coimbatore City.2. The Additional Director General of Police, (Law & Order), Kamaraj Salai, Chennai – 600 004.3. The Director General of Police (Law & Order), Kamaraj Salai, Chennai – 600 004.Page No.10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12303 of 2015W.P.No.12303 of 201517.06.2025Page No.11 of 11