Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.15685 of 2011 Egmore, Chennai – 600 008..... Respondents*R4 amended as per order dated 04.11.2011 made in M.P.No.3 of 2011. Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of removal made in P.R.No.27/PR.N(2)/2010 dated 07.12.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent and the subsequent order made in C.No.Appeal No.36/PR.N (2)/2010 dated 03.01.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequential order made in Na.Ka.No.kat.2 (1)/18/1056/2011 dated 13.05.2011 passed by the 4th respondent and quash the same and further directing the 3rd respondent to reinstate petitioner in service with continuity of service and back wages and all other attendant benefits.For Petitioner: Mr.G.PugazhenthiFor Respondents: Mr.V.Nanmaran Additional Government Pleader. O R D E RThis writ petition has been originally filed by the 1st petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by the 3rd respondent through proceedings P.R.No.27/P.R.N(2)/2010 dated 07.12.2010, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent dated 03.01.2011, and the further order passed by the 4th respondent dated 13.05.2011, confirming the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner by the 3rd respondent.2.During the pendency of this writ petition, the sole petitioner Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 2011passed away on 25.12.2015 and accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 5 were brought on record, being the legal representatives of the deceased 1st petitioner.3.While the 1st petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') was working as Head Constable at K-9, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar (Law and Order) Police Station, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Department Subordinate Services (Conditions & Appeal) Rules, 1955 by framing the following three charges:“ePh; 07-02-2010k; njjp ,ut[ Rkhu; 11/00 kzpastpy;. !;luhd;!; nuhL. M.K.T jpUkz kz;lgj;jpd; Kd; Fonghijapy; fyhl;lh bra;J. bghJ kf;fSf;F ,ila{W bra;jJld;. me;j tHpahf nghnthu; tUnthiu mrp';fkhd thu;j;ijfshy; ngrpa[k;. jpl;oa[k; jfuhW bra;J bfhz;oUe;Js;sPu;/ ,J bjhlu;ghf jpU K:h;j;jp vd;gtu; bfhLj;j g[fhupd; mogilapy; P2 Cr.No. 119/2010, u/s 75 CP Act and 4(1) J TNP Act y; tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,r;bray; kpft[k; fz;of;fjf;f Fw;wk;@.2) ePu; Fonghijapy; fyhl;lh bra;J. bghJ kf;fSf;F ,ila{W bra;tjhf tlf;F kz;ly fhty;gl;Lghl;liwapypUe;J fpilf;fg;bgw;w jftypd; ngupy; m';F P2 Xl;nlup nuhe;J thfd tz;oapy; te;j cjtp Ma;thsu; jpU KUfd; vd;gtiu mtuJ flikia bra;atplhky; jfuhW bra;jJld;. mtUila rl;ilia gpoj;J ,Gj;J jfuhW bra;J. tprhuizf;F xj;JiHf;f kWj;J Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 2011fhty; Jiwf;F fs';fk; Vw;gLj;jpa xG';fPd elj;ij bray; flik. fz;zpak; kw;Wk; xGf;fk; epiwe;j fhty; Jiwapy; fz;of;fj;jf;f Fw;wk;/3) nkw;go ck;Kila ,r;bray;fs; fhty; mYtyh; elj;ij tpjp 24 kw;Wk; fhty; epiy Miz vz; 110I kPwpa Fw;wbrayhFk;/@4.It was thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 05.05.2010 explaining the charges and also sought for furnishing of the documents mentioned in the charge memo dated 16.03.2010 i.e., documents that are sought to be relied upon in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The relevant paragraph of the said explanation of the petitioner reads as under: “3.The charge memo reveals that the prosecution relies upon the documents relied upon in annexure 3 viz 1 to 7. The copies of the documents mentioned in therein have not been furnished to me to enable me to know about the charge against me, give a better explanation and to enable me to prepare the cross-examination of the said witnesses by consulting my counsel. I therefore request that I shall please be supplied copy of the above said documents immediately. Otherwise the departmental enquiry will be a farce and biased since I have been kept in dark concerning those documents.”5.It was thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed and Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 2011accordingly, the enquiry officer, after having conducted an enquiry, submitted his report dated 27.09.2010. The said report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner, affording an opportunity to submit a further representation and thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed orders bearing P.R.No.27/PR.N(2)/2010 dated 07.12.2010 imposing the punishment of removal from service. Though the said order was appealed against by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent and 4th respondent respectively, complaining that the documents that are sought to be relied upon in support of the charges were not furnished, the respondents 2 & 4 confirmed the orders passed by the 3rd respondent by passing the orders dated 03.01.2011 & 13.05.2011 respectively. It is aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.6.From a perusal of the charges that are levelled against the petitioner, it is noticed that the charge against the petitioner is behaving in an indecent manner and causing nuisance to the public in a drunken condition before the MKT Marriage Hall on Strahans Road, Chennai, and abusing passers-by and creating altercations. Further, the charge against the petitioner is that when the Sub-Inspector Thiru.Murugan came to the spot on receiving information, the petitioner prevented him from discharging his duties by Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 2011creating altercations, pulling his shirt, and refusing to cooperate with the investigation, thereby engaging in disorderly conduct that brought disrepute to the Police Department. As against the said charge, the enquiry officer, after having conducted an enquiry, submitted his report holding that all the charges were proved as against the petitioner. It was on the consideration of the said report, the 3rd respondent passed impugned order dated 07.12.2010 imposing the punishment of removal from service. The 3rd respondent, having received the report of the enquiry officer, passed a cryptic order dated 07.12.2010, and the relevant portion of the said order reads as under:“4) I have carefully gone through the minute file and other connected records. He has not presented any valid reasons for consideration on his explanation. During his service so may time he has frequently absented for duty without intimation, permission and leave and it is violation of PSO 95 & 96. This shows his disinterest in the job. He committed the same kind of delinquency of absented from duty from the disciplinary force, which was tarnished the imaged of the Police force. It is very evident that he has committed the same delinquency. His further continuance in the department will erode the base of discipline among the staff, which will be detrimental to the smooth and effective functioning of the department. Under these circumstances, I am left with no other option except to award him the punishment of “Removal from service” from the date of this order.”7.From the perusal of the above, there is nothing to indicate any application of mind on the part of the 3rd respondent with reference to the Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 2011charges that are levelled against the petitioner. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent proceeded to consider the past conduct of the petitioner, that is, frequently being absent from duty without intimation and permission in violation of PSO 95 & 96. The said order also takes note of petitioner frequently being absent from duty without intimation and permission or grant of leave. On noticing the past conduct of the petitioner of frequent absentism, the 3rd respondent came to the conclusion that the continuance of the petitioner in the department will erode the base of discipline among the staff and thereby, came to the conclusion to impose punishment of removal from service. From the said order dated 07.12.2010, it is evident that the 3rd respondent, except extracting the charges, failed to consider either the charges that are levelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry in question nor the explanation submitted by the petitioner, and arrived at the conclusion to impose the punishment of removal from service only on the ground that the petitioner is habitually and frequently absent. Thus, it is evident that the charges that are levelled against the petitioner in the present disciplinary proceedings were not the grounds on which the 3rd respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service. Frequent absentism or the past conduct of the petitioner is not the subject matter of the present disciplinary proceedings, nor any charges are levelled against the petitioner in that regard. Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 2011Thus, it is evident that the impugned punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is not based on the charges that are levelled against the petitioner, but on certain extraneous considerations which are outside the scope of the charges in question.8.Be that as it may, when the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent specifically alleging that the documents that were relied upon by the department in support of the charges were not furnished to the petitioner in his appeal, the 2nd respondent, without considering the said contention mechanically confirmed the orders passed by the 3rd respondent, by passing an order dated 03.01.2011. It was thereafter, through memorandum R.C.No. Est.2(1)/18/1056/2011 dated 13.05.2011, the petitioner was required to vacate the quarters.9.From the perusal of the charge memo dated 16.03.2010, issued to the petitioner, is evident that the department intended to rely upon as many as 9 documents, and the petitioner has specifically requested for furnishing the copies of those documents by submitting his explanation dated 05.05.2010. Inspite of the same, neither the said documents were furnished to the petitioner nor they were produced and marked as exhibits during the course of Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 2011enquiry against the petitioner. However, the enquiry officer, by placing reliance on all those documents, arrived at conclusion holding that the charges that are levelled against the petitioner as proved. When the petitioner filed an appeal, duly bringing to the notice of the 2nd respondent about non-furnishing of the documents, the 2nd respondent, also without application of mind and in a mechanical manner, rejected the said appeal.Thus, it is evident that the disciplinary proceedings that were concluded against the petitioner are in violation of the principles of natural justice causing great prejudice to the petitioner.10.Be that as it may, as already noted above, the 3rd respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner not based on the charges that are levelled in the present disciplinary proceedings, but basing upon the past conduct of the petitioner, though the same was not the subject matter. It is now well settled that in case, if the disciplinary authority intends to rely upon the past conduct of the petitioner for the purpose of imposing the punishment, it is mandatory to afford an opportunity to the petitioner with regard to his past conduct and then only the same can be relied upon for the purpose of imposing the punishment at later point of time. But, in the instant case, admittedly, the past conduct of the petitioner or the Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 2011punishment that was already suffered by the petitioner as on the date of issuance of the impugned charge memo was not intended to be relied upon by the 3rd respondent disciplinary authority but the same became basis for imposing the punishment in question. For this reason also, the impugned punishment of removal from service is liable to be set aside. 11.As this Court has come to the conclusion that the impugned punishment is liable to be struck down for want of compliance of principles of natural justice, the next question that would fall for consideration is what should follow once the impugned punishment is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. As already noted above, the 1st petitioner has already passed away on 25.12.2015 and the petitioners 2 to 5 herein were brought on record being the legal representatives of the deceased 1st petitioner. 12.In the normal course, this Court would have remitted the matter back to the respondents for compliance of the principles of natural justice and to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, but in view of long lapse of time about 15 years since the date of filing of the present writ petition and also considering the fact that the 1st petitioner is no more, this Court is not inclined Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 2011to remand the matter back to the respondents for a fresh denova enquiry. As the 1st petitioner is no more, it is also not possible for the petitioners 2 to 5 to defend the disciplinary proceedings, in case, if the proceedings are remanded back to the respondents. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that instead of remanding the matter back to the disciplinary proceedings, it would be appropriate and in the better interest of justice to impose the appropriate punishment against the petitioner to put a quietus to the matter once and for all. As the petitioner has already completed 25 years of service and the 3rd respondent has come to the conclusion that the continuance of the petitioner in service is not in the interest of the department, it would have been appropriate for the 3rd respondent to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement instead of removal from service, especially in the context of the facts that the alleged misconduct of the petitioner was nothing to do with the discharging of his official duties, and he was not on duty when the alleged misconduct said to have committed by the petitioner.13.In the light of the above, the impugned order is quashed, and the petitioner shall be deemed to have been continued in service till 25.12.2015 i.e., the date of his demise and he shall be paid all retirement benefits, except Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 2011backwages for the period from 07.12.2010 to 25.12.2015. The period of suspension shall also be regularized as leave for which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to. The respondents are directed to calculate and release all terminal benefits of the 1st petitioner in favour of the petitioners 2 to 5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall also pay the pension, family pension and pension arrears within the time stipulated above.14.Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.24.07.2025dpaIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes / NoTo1.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai – 600 004.Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 20112.The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.3.The Joint Commissioner of Police North Zone, Chennai Police Chennai.4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Head Quarters), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.dpaW.P.No.15685 of 2011Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15685 of 201124.07.2025Page 14 of 14