High Court · 2025

W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023For Appellant: Mr.Mohaboob AtiffFor Respondents: Mr.A.Kannan,Addl. Government Pleader for R1 & R2. Mr.M.Sakthikumar,Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R3 & R4.JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 02.01.2023 dismissing W.P.(MD)No.990 of 2020 filed by the appellant herein.2.The appellant herein joined the police department as Grade II Police Constable. He was promoted as Grade I Police Constable subsequently. During the year 1996, he was posted as armed guard for Manachanallur Branch of Bank of Baroda. One Ananda Ganesan used to supply tea to the bank officials. He suffered burn injuries on 03.07.1996. The incident had taken place in the first floor of the bank premises. He succumbed to his injuries on 06.07.1996. In this regard, Crime No.335 of 1996 was registered on the file of Manachanallur Police Station under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 20233.In connection with this incident, the appellant was issued with a charge memo on 09.04.2009. An enquiry officer was appointed. The charge against the appellant was that by his conduct, he brought disrepute to the organization. The enquiry officer submitted report holding that the charge against the appellant stood proved. Vide G.O.2D.No.406 Home (Police 2) Department dated 30.08.2016, punishment of withholding of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect affecting the appellant's pension was imposed. Seeking review of the same, the appellant moved the first respondent. The first respondent vide G.O.(D)No.877 Home (Police VI) Department, dated 08.08.2019 confirmed the punishment earlier made and declined to interfere. Challenging these orders, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.990 of 2020. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 02.01.2023 in the following terms:-“8.The sequence of events relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the conduct of the enquiry and the aftermath of the enquiry culminating into the imposition of punishment and, thereafter, the appeal and revision, 3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023which were ultimately rejected are not disputed. Though challenge has been mounted on the disciplinary enquiry, the main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the punishment imposed. 9.In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in the disciplined force and at the time of occurrence, his version was that he was not in the place as projected by the officials of the bank. It is their version that on 03.07.1996, at about 3.30 p.m., in the first floor of the campus, Anantha Ganesan suffered burn injuries and they rushed and attempted to save Anantha Ganesan by using the fire extinguisher. However, the fire extinguisher was not working. Perusal of the entire evidence reveals that the victim was admitted in the hospital only by his relatives, viz., his father and uncle and the fact remains that the police constables, who are working in the bank and other bank officials have not taken any steps to save the life of the victim, though they admittedly in the same campus. However, the departmental action was initiated against the petitioner only in the year 2007. It is true that delay in issuing the charge memo vitiates the entire departmental proceedings and decision was also rendered in a catena of decisions and this Court also uphold the said decision. However, the facts of the present case are entirely different, wherein a life was lost. Since because the victim complained about the petitioner and one Muthaiyan for their wrongful act and hence, there was a tussle between the petitioner, Muthian on one side and the deceased on 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023the other side. In order to prove the same, no document was exhibited by the Enquiry Officer. However, the enquiry officer arrived at a prima facie conclusion based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and further the petitioner claimed before the Judicial Magistrate in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement that the deceased himself categorically deposed before the Magistrate that he committed suicide on his own by pouring kerosene, whereas the very same deceased made a statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer that someone lit fire on his back thereby he suffered burn injuries and based on which, the enquiry officer drawn a proven minute and submitted a report before the disciplinary authority. However, the fact remains that the petitioner served as an armed guard, whereas, the deceased was supplying tea to the staff of the bank. Though the petitioner claims that at the relevant point of time, he was not available on duty, to substantiate the same before the enquiry officer or before this Court, no materials have been placed. 10.It is also an admitted fact that the dismissal of the criminal case pursuant to the G.O., is dropped for want of evidence. However, dropping of the criminal case is not a bar for the disciplinary authority to initiate action. The question arises in the writ petition is as to whether the delay in issuing the charge memo will vitiate the entire proceedings. This Court perused the circular dated 30.03.2006, wherein, it is clarified by the respondents that there is no need to drop disciplinary proceedings even when the criminal case was ended in acquittal and based on 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023the said report, the present charge memo came to be issued. Hence, the delay in issuing the charge memo is properly explained in the present case. 11.In view of the above, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case on hand and further though the allegations made against the petitioner is grave in nature, considering lack of evidence with regard to the involvement of the petitioner for the death of Anantha Ganesan, the disciplinary authority arrived at a fair conclusion and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect, which is found to be a reasonable one. Similarly, the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate or shocking the conscience of this Court and, therefore, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities by substituting its view and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the punishment imposed.”Questioning the same, this intra-court appeal has been filed.4.The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of writ appeal and called upon this Court to interfere in the matter.6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 20235.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that interference with the order of the learned Single Judge is not called for and he pressed for dismissal of the writ appeal.6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The charge against the appellant is as follows:-''kz;zr;rey;Y}h; fhty; epiya rufk;> kz;zr;rey;Y}h; gnuhlh tq;fpf;F NjePh; rg;is nra;Jte;j jpU.Mde;j fnzrd; vd;gth; 03.07.1996k; Njjpad;W re;Njfkhd Kiwapy; jPf;fhaq;fSld; capUf;F Nghuhba epiyapy; muR kUj;Jtkidapy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;Lk; gpd;dh; 06.07.1996k; Njjpad;W ,wg;gjw;F Kd;dh; yhy;Fb tUtha; Nfhl;lr;rpahh; mth;fsplk; nfhLj;j ,wg;G thf;F %yj;jpy; (Dying Declaration) ePtph;> tq;fp fhg;G gzpapy; ,Ue;j rkaj;jpy; jpU.Kj;ijad;> mYtyf cjtpahsh;> gnuhlh tq;fp vd;gtUld; Nrh;e;J tq;fp tshfj;jpy; ,uT Neuq;fspy; ngz;fSld; jtwhd cwtpy; <LgLtjhfTk;> mjid ,we;J Nghd Mde;j fNzrd; Nehpy; ghh;j;jjhy; ePtph; jpU.Kj;ijaDld; Nrh;e;J> ,r;rk;gtj;ij gw;wp ntspapy; nrd;dhy; mtiuAk; mtuJ FLk;gj;ijAk; fhyp nra;J tpLtjhf kpulbajhfTk;> Nkw;gb rk;gtj;ij Mde;j fnzrd; tq;fp mYtyh;fsplk; nrhd;djhy; NfhgKw;W ePtph;> jpU.Kj;ijad; vd;gtUld; Nrh;e;J Mde;j fnzrd; kPJ kz;nzz;a; Cw;wp jP itj;jjhf re;Njfg;gLtjhf 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023njhptpj;Js;shh;. Nkw;gb ckJ nra;ifahdJ fz;zpak; kpf;f fhty; Jiwf;F kpf;f mtgngah; kw;Wk; ePq;fhj fsq;fj;ij Vw;gLj;Jk; fz;bf;fj;jf;f elj;ij.”7.From a bare reading of the above, one can come to the conclusion that the appellant was virtually charged with murder. The charge reads that on 03.07.1996, the appellant who was working as an Armed Guard at Manachanallur Branch of Bank of Baroda was engaged in illicit relationship in the bank premises during the night hours and that this was noticed by one Ananda Ganesan, tea supplier and that the appellant along with bank staff / Muthaiyan threatened Ananda Ganesan with dire consequences and that Ananda Ganesan was unable to bear the said harassment. The said Ananda Ganesan in his dying declaration given to the Revenue Divisional Officer had stated that he suspected that it was the appellant / Balaji and the said Muthaiyan who had poured kerosene on him and set fire to him.8.As already mentioned, this incident had taken place way back on 03.07.1996. If the allegation made against the appellant was true, certainly, the appellant ought to have been prosecuted for the offence of 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023murder. Interestingly, the government chose not to prosecute the appellant. The decision taken by the government is set out in letter dated 03.10.2015 issued by the Principal Secretary, Public Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai. Copy of the said letter has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. The said letter reads as follows:-“I am directed to state that the Government have examined the legal opinion of the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Tiruchy Region relating to filing criminal prosecution against the concerned delinquents in connection with the suspicious death of Thiru. Ananda Ganesan. The Deputy Director of Prosecution, Tiruchy Region has opined that "The report of RDO is cryptic and did not raise any "Prima facie" materials so as to warrant any Criminal Prosecution. Moreover nearly, 12 years had lapsed since occurrence. No useful purpose will be served by approaching criminal court on suspicious facts. The Inquiry Report had not brought any proved relevant facts either thro'direct or thro' circumstances. Hence the direction of the Government cannot be legally sustained. In legal jurisprudence no case will stand on suspicion" Further the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai is that it is not advisable to pursue, the matter further by way of prosecution, after a lapse of nearly 12 years since occurrence, no useful purpose will be served and while approaching the court on suspicious facts, no proved facts have been placed before the enquiry authority. 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023Accordingly, the Government have decided to drop further action in the proposed criminal prosecution as ordered, in the references and 2nd cited against the erring police personnel Thiru. Balaji; AR PC and the bank staff Thiru. Muthalan, OA, Bank of Baroda în connection with the death of one Ananda Ganesan under mysterious circumstances on 06.07.1996 at the Bank of Baroda in Manachanallur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.”9.The learned counsel for the appellant also draws our attention to the letter written by the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli on 08.07.1996. It is seen therefrom that the deceased had admitted before the judicial magistrate who recorded the dying declaration that he committed self-immolation. The Revenue Divisional Officer who recorded another dying declaration two days later had expressed his suspicion about the appellant's involvement. On the basis of mere suspicion, without any foundational material, a person cannot be found guilty. 10.The sequence of events cannot be lost sight of. For an incident that had taken place in July, 1996, charge memo was issued 13 years later i.e., on 09.04.2009. If the charge memo had been challenged, it would have been quashed on the ground of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023in the case of P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in AIR 2006 SC 207, while dealing with a case regarding a disciplinary enquiry initiated after an inordinate and unexplained delay of ten years held that initiation of a departmental proceeding so belatedly would be prejudicial to the delinquent. We are satisfied that the delayed issuance of charge memo had caused prejudice to the appellant. 11.The enquiry report is dated 19.08.2009. The order imposing the punishment was passed on 30.08.2016. It is interesting to note that in the said disciplinary proceedings, there is no reference to the letter dated 03.10.2015 issued by the Principal Secretary, Public Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai. The learned Singe Judge rightly held that the dropping of criminal case is not a bar for the disciplinary authority to initiate action. But this principle will hold good only if the subject matter is one which can be enquired into by the disciplinary authority. The charge is that the appellant brought disrepute to the organization. But the imputation of misconduct is to the effect that the appellant was the cause of death. If that be so, it is only the criminal court and not the disciplinary authority which could have found the 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023appellant guilty. Anybody can be accused of anything. Therefore, mere implication in an FIR by itself cannot be a ground for initiating disciplinary action. There must be some substantive material to charge the employee with misconduct. In this case, there is none. That is why, the Government itself thought it fit to debunk the RDO's report and drop criminal prosecution against the appellant. But the contents of the said government letter which have a vital bearing on the disciplinary proceedings in hand was not at all adverted to either by the first respondent or the learned Single Judge. In the said letter, the very same RDO report on which the enquiry report places heavy reliance and which has been reiterated by the disciplinary authority, has been characterized as “cryptic”. There is a specific finding that it did not disclose any “prima facie material” to warrant any criminal prosecution. Furthermore, it states that the Inquiry Report had not brought any proved relevant facts either through direct or through indirect circumstances and that no proved facts have been placed before the enquiry authority. 12.We are more than satisfied that there is absolutely no material to find the delinquent guilty. We went through the contents of the enquiry report. The enquiry officer had recorded a finding that the appellant had 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023conducted himself in such a way so as to cause suspicion in the mind of the deceased. Such a finding has been given solely based on the report of the RDO. This was a report which was subsequently rejected by the Government. This undermines the basis of the enquiry report. The order of the disciplinary authority is vitiated for not adverting to the aforesaid government letter. The findings of the enquiry officer are based on no evidence. We have already noted that there is no explanation for the delayed issuance of charge memo. We have also held that this delay has caused serious prejudice to the appellant in establishing his innocence. 13.For the foregoing reasons, the punishment imposed on the appellant is not justified. These aspects were not taken note of by the authorities as well as the learned Single Judge. The orders impugned in these writ appeals are quashed and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. (G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 10.06.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes/ Noias/SKM13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023To:1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Pol VI) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 002.2.The Secretary to Government, Home (Pol.2) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.3.The Director General of Police, Chennai - 600 004.4.The Superintendent of Police, Trichy.14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.andK.RAJASEKAR, J.ias/SKMW.A.(MD)No.249 of 2023 10.06.202515/15