Madras High Court
The Inspector General And vs P.Arumugam on 8 April, 2021
WA.No.423/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 08.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
WA.No.347/2021
& CMP.No.1679/2021
1.The Inspector General and
Commissioner of Police
Salem City Police
Salem.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Law and Order, Salem City Police
Salem. .. Appellants
Versus
P.Arumugam .. Respondent
/ Writ Petitioner
Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 02.03.2018 made in WP.No.1420/2012 on the file of this Court.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.423/2021
For Appellants : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., through
Video Conferencing]
1. The official respondents in WP.No.1420/2012 are the appellants
herein.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner made a challenge to the impugned
proceedings of the 2nd as well as 1st appellants dated 07.08.2010 and
18.01.2011 respectively by filing WP.No.1420/2012 and to quash the
same with a consequential direction, directing the appellants/official
respondents, to regularise the period of suspension between
09.03.2009 and 01.05.2009 as duty for all purposes with
consequential benefits and the writ petition, after contest, came to be
allowed vide impugned order dated 02.03.2018 and challenging the
legality of the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.423/2021
would submit that though the private witnesses did not support the
case of the Department, the official witnesses 5 to 8 have supported
the case and the Enquiry Officer, on a thorough consideration of the
materials placed, has rightly reached the conclusion that the
respondent/writ petitioner is guilty of delinquencies pointed out in the
Charge Memo dated 01.04.2009 in PR.No.15/H1/2009 and the
Disciplinary Authority has accepted the findings of the Enquiry
Officer and imposed with the punishment of reduction of time scale
of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect and the
Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal filed by the
respondent/writ petitioner and in the light of the said concurrent
findings, the scope of interference by this Court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with
regard to the interference with the findings reached by the
Disciplinary Authority, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority and
the quantum of punishment, is very limited and hence, prays for
interference.
4. This Court has carefully considered the arguments advanced by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.423/2021
learned Special Government Pleader and also perused the materials
placed before it.
5. The facts leading to the present round of litigation have been narrated
in detail and in extenso in the impugned order dated 02.03.2018 made
in WP.No.1420/2012 which is the subject matter of challenge in the
present writ appeal and therefore, it is unnecessary to restate the facts
once again for the sake of brevity.
6. The respondent/writ petitioner was issued with a charge memo under
Rule 3[b] of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services [Discipline
and Appeal] Rules, 1955, vide proceedings dated 01.04.2009 alleging
that he abused an auto-rickshaw driver, by name M.Vadivelu, by
using unparliamentary and filthy language and also forcefully
removed a sum of Rs.270/- from his pocket and kept a sum of
Rs.200/- and threw away Rs.70/- on the road. The respondent/writ
petitioner submitted his explanation / written statement, denying the
said charge. During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were
examined as private witnesses and rest of them were examined as
official witnesses. The private witnesses include the auto-rickshaw
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.423/2021
driver, viz., M.Vadivelu, who did not support the case of the
Department and was treated as a hostile witness and the Enquiry
Officer himself has cross-examined the prosecution witnesses.
7. The learned Judge has recorded the finding that even in the counter
affidavit, it is admitted that the main witness had turned hostile and
despite that, the Enquiry Officer had relied upon the statements of
those witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry and rendered the
finding on the basis of the said exercise. The learned Judge, further
recorded the finding that though the main witnesses have turned
hostile, they were not subjected to proper cross-examination and the
Enquiry Officer had assumed the role of the Department/prosecution
and asked few question to the witnesses who did not support the
Department and even then, he was not able to elicit any answer in
support of the charge memo.
8. The learned Judge has also placed reliance upon the Circular issued
by the Director General of Tamil Nadu Police dated 25.04.2007
which stipulates that the charges are not to be held proved only on the
basis of the statement given during preliminary enquiry and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.423/2021
charges ought to have been proved only on the statement given during
regular/oral enquiry and found that the findings reached by the
Enquiry Officer is merely based upon the statements recorded during
preliminary enquiry. The learned Judge, having found that the
Disciplinary Authority has reached the finding of guilt, based upon
such invalid findings and imposition of penalty, as per se
unsustainable. This Court has also gone through the materials placed,
especially, the order of the 1st appellant/1st respondent dated
07.08.2010, in dismissing the appeal.
9. The findings rendered by the Appellate Authority is also bereft of any
reasons and is a cryptic one. It is a well settled position of law that
the statements recorded during preliminary enquiry, cannot be relied
upon to arrive at a conclusion that a delinquent officer is guilty of the
charges framed in the charge memo and the Learned Judge, on an
indepth analysis and consideration of the entire materials, had rightly
reached the conclusion that the charges framed against the
respondent/writ petition, have not been proved and further found that
even if the matter is remanded, no useful purpose would be served.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.423/2021
10. This Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire
materials is of the considered view that there is no error apparent or
infirmity or perversity in the findings rendered by the learned Judge
for allowing the writ petition and finds no merits in this writ appeal.
11. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage
itself, confirming the order dated 02.03.2018 made in
WP.No.1420/2012.
12. The appellants/official respondents are granted twelve weeks time
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order / uploading of the
order in the website, to confer all consequential and attendant benefits
to the respondent/writ petitioner. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[MSNJ] [PRMJ]
08.04.2021
AP
Internet: Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.423/2021
To
1.The Inspector General and
Commissioner of Police
Salem City Police
Salem.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Law and Order, Salem City Police
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.No.423/2021
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
AND
P.RAJAMANICKAM, J.,
AP
WA.No.423/2021
08.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
