✦ High Court of India · 28 Mar 2024

High Court · 2024

Case Details High Court of India · 28 Mar 2024

Court

High Court of India

Decided

28 Mar 2024

Bench

Not available

Length

1,231 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

W.P.No.26532 of 2009IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.03.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARANW.P.No.26532 of 2009R.Vinodh ....PetitionerVs1. The Secretary to Government, Home Police IX Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.2. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai-4.3. The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, Special Force, Poonamallee, Chennai. ....RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent in P.R.No.13/2005 dated 15.07.2005 and by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.231622/AP3(1)/2005 dated 17.12.2005 and by the 1st respondent in G.O.(2D) No.362, Home (Pol-IX) Department dated 19.06.2006 and G.O.(2D)No.428 Home (Pol-9) Department dated 18.07.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits. ________Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26532 of 2009For Petitioner: Mr.K.Venkataraman Senior Counsel For Respondent: M/s.Tamil Selvi Additional Government PleaderO R D E RThe Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent in P.R.No.13/2005 dated 15.07.2005 and by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.231622/AP3(1)/2005 dated 17.12.2005 and by the 1st respondent in G.O.(2D) No.362, Home (Pol-IX) Department dated 19.06.2006 and G.O.(2D)No.428 Home (Pol-9) Department dated 18.07.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner was charged as follows:1/ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;ltuhfpa ePh; j/rp/fh/rpwg;g[g; gil , epWkj;jpy; fhtyuhf gzpg[hpe;jnghJ fl;e;j 6/4/2005 md;W g{e;jky;yp fpisr; rpiwr;rhiy ghJfhg;g[ gdpf;F epakpf;fg;gl;L gfy; 13/00 Kjy; 15/00 kzp tiu fhg;g[ gzpapy; ,Ue;j ePh; kpf Kf;fpakhd fhg;g[ ________Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26532 of 2009gzpapy; ,Uf;Fk; nghJ Jg;g[ut[ gzpahsh; bcwd;wpuh$d; vd;gth; K:yk; gphpahzp bghl;lyKk; gpuhe;jpghl;oYk; th';fptur; brhy;yp gzpapypUf;Fk; nghJ kJ mUe;jp rhg;gpl;L tpl;L fhg;g[ gzp g[hpa[k; ,lj;jpnyna gLj;J J}';fpaK fz;of;fj;jf;f elj;ij2/ 6/4/2005 md;W 13/00 kzp Kjy; 15/00 kzp tiu gzp Koe;J 15/00 kzpf;F epWkj;jpy; fhg;g[ Fgj; jiythplk; mwpf;if bra;;ahjJ flik jtwpa Fw;wk;/3. Though, petitioner participated in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer after recording the oral evidence of witnesses and the petitioner's evidence, had not appreciated and analyzed the evidence, but concluded just referring the number of witnesses examined and documents marked and held that the charges against the petitioner were proved. That is not correct. Finding was not recorded as required under law.4. His next submission is that, the disciplinary authority has not considered the evidence properly and in the manner known to law. The disciplinary authority has just referred the number of witnesses examined, number of documents marked and imposed the punishment of removal from service. The Appellate Authority's order is not a speaking order. Thus, he prays for setting aside the punishment imposed against the petitioner. ________Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26532 of 20095. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, oral and documentary evidence were rightly considered by the disciplinary authority. The Appellate authority rightly found that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, only after considering the evidence available on record, passed the orders. It is not as though, they have not considered the evidence on record. Thus, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority do not call for any interference.6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. As indicated above, charges against the petitioner is that:1/ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;ltuhfpa ePh; j/rp/fh/rpwg;g[g; gil , epWkj;jpy; fhtyuhf gzpg[hpe;jnghJ fl;e;j 6/4/2005 md;W g{e;jky;yp fpisr; rpiwr;rhiy ghJfhg;g[ gdpf;F epakpf;fg;gl;L gfy; 13/00 Kjy; 15/00 kzp tiu fhg;g[ gzpapy; ,Ue;j ePh; kpf Kf;fpakhd fhg;g[ gzpapy; ,Uf;Fk; nghJ Jg;g[ut[ gzpahsh; bcwd;wpuh$d; vd;gth; K:yk; gphpahzp bghl;lyKk; gpuhe;jpghl;oYk; th';fptur; brhy;yp gzpapypUf;Fk; nghJ kJ mUe;jp rhg;gpl;L tpl;L fhg;g[ gzp g[hpa[k; ,lj;jpnyna gLj;J J}';fpaK fz;of;fj;jf;f elj;ij________Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26532 of 20092/ 6/4/2005 md;W 13/00 kzp Kjy; 15/00 kzp tiu gzp Koe;J 15/00 kzpf;F epWkj;jpy; fhg;g[ Fgj; jiythplk; mwpf;if bra;;ahjJ flik jtwpa Fw;wk;/7. It is seen from the Enquiry Officer's report that, 14 witnesses have been examined and 15 exhibits have been marked. The witness, especially PW2 had clearly stated that, petitioner asked him to buy chicken biriyani and brandi bottle. PW3 stated that, after receiving cover from PW2, petitioner locked himself in the room. It was also stated by him that, petitioner was not in prison, when inspected by the Incharge. PW3's evidence is corroborated by PW4. When PW2 returned after purchasing chicken biriyani and brandi bottle, PW3 prevented him from entering into prison. Petitioner picked up quarrel with him and received the cover from PW2. PW7 stated about petitioner's sleeping during the duty time. PW8 stated that, when he went to change the guard duty, petitioner was sleeping. He woke him up and received the bullets from him. After half an hour, petitioner got up and threw the plastic covers and water pockets. There was a watter bottle lying on the ground. PW9 spoke about the petitioner's sleeping during the duty time. PW10 spoke about the petitioner's sleeping ________Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26532 of 2009during the duty time and the inspection made by the Superiors. PW11 spoke about petitioner not reporting to him after duty period. PW12 spoke about petitioner not reporting duty after completion of duty hours. PW13 spoke about the incident that had happened on 06.04.2005. PW17 spoke about the suspension of the petitioner.8. It is seen from the enquiry report that, Enquiry Officer considered the evidence produced before him and the defence projected by the petitioner and then came to the conclusion, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, that the charges against the petitioner were proved. 9. Thus, this Court finds that, there is no illegality or irregularity in the conduct of enquiry and the finding that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges framed against him. However, when the disciplinary authority passed an order removing the petitioner from service, it is seen that the charges and the evidence were not properly dealt and considered. It is just an half page order indicating charges and evidence proved and the conclusion on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is not a speaking order. The appellate authority has also not considered the evidence available on records properly and proceeded to confirm the orders ________Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26532 of 2009of the disciplinary authority. 10. Prima facie, the order of the disciplinary authority is not a speaking order. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It goes without saying that Appellate Authority has also not independently considered the evidence available on proper perspective and took the decision. Therefore, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are set aside. This matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for passing speaking orders on the basis of the enquiry report. This exercise should be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 11. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 28.03.2024Index :Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSma________Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26532 of 2009 G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, JSmaTo1. The Secretary to Government, Home Police IX Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9.2. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Mylapore, Chennai-4.3. The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, Special Force, Poonamallee, Chennai. W.P.No.26532 of 200928.03.2024________Page 8 of 9

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Constitution of India