Madras High Court
Rajasekaran vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 19 July, 2021
W.P.No.42902 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:19.07.2021
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.42902 of 2016
and
WMP.No.36797 of 2016
1. Rajasekaran
2.Sankaranarayanan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Coimbatore Circle,
Coimbatore.
2.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the record in No.3894/mu/2016 and No.3895/mu/2016 both orders
dated 12.09.2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same
and consequently issue a direction to reinstate the petitioners with
continuity of service, backwages and suitable promotion on for
excellence with the petitioners junior most person.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.No.42902 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Elamurugan
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Government Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to call for the record in
No.3894/mu/2016 and No.3895/mu/2016 both orders dated 12.09.2016
on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently
issue a direction to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service,
backwages and suitable promotion on for excellence with the petitioners
junior most person.
2. The petitioners herein, while employed as a Grade-II Police
Constables, were levelled with certain charges to the effect that they had
impersonated as police officers and demanded Rs.500/- from
Mr.S.Arunkumar and Mr.P.Subash. Pursuant to an enquiry conducted,
the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of dismissal from
service on 15.10.2015. The appeal against the same was dismissed by
the first respondent on 12.09.2016. These orders are put under challenge
in the present Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.42902 of 2016
3. The legal grounds raised by the petitioner challenging the orders
of punishment is that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was based on “no
evidence”. The scope of interference to an order of punishment by the
High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is very limited. One among the exceptions for interference with
such the punishment is on the ground of “no evidence”, as laid down by a
Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India Vs. H.C.Goel reported in AIR 1964 SC 364. The relevant
portion of the order in paragraph No.20 is extracted hereunder:
“This conclusion does not finally dispose of the
appeal. It still remains to be considered whether the
respondent is not right when he contends that in the
circumstances of this case, the conclusion of the
Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is a
conclusion which is perverse and therefore, suffers from
such an obvious and patent error on the face of the
record that the High Court would be justified in quashing
it. In dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants
who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to
attract Art. 311 (2), the High Court under Art. 226 has
Jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the
Government on which the impugned order of dismissal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.42902 of 2016
rests is not supported by any evidence at all. It is true
that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a
Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be
described as an administrative order; nevertheless, the
proceedings held against such a public servant under the
statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the
charge framed against him are in the nature of quasi-
judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a
writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a
public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that
the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said
proceedings which is the basis of his dismissal is based
on no evidence. In fact, in fairness to the learned
Attorney-General, we ought to add that he did not
seriously dispute this, position in law.”
4. The aforesaid extract is self- explanatory. As such, when the
findings of the Enquiry Officer that the charges are proved is based on
“no evidence” at all, the consequential punishment cannot be sustained.
This proposition has been adopted in various other decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.42902 of 2016
5. In the instant case, the petitioners herein were levelled with
charges that they had demanded Rs.500/- from Mr.S.Arunkumar and
Mr.P.Subash. Before the Enquriy Officer, these two persons namely,
S.Arunkumar and P.Subash, were examined as PW2 and PW3, who had
deposed that they do not remember the delinquence. Inspite of such a
statement, the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority as well as the
appellate authority have come to the conclusion that the charges against
the petitioner of having demanded Rs.500/- from Mr.S.Arunkumar and
Mr.P.Subash, are proven.
6. Incidentally, the PW1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had
registered the FIR against the petitioners herein and framed the criminal
charges. Apart from that, PW1 does not support the department's case in
any other manner. It is now brought to the notice of this court that even
the criminal case registered against the petitioners herein, had ended in
an order of honourable acquittal through the judgment passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.274 of 2015
dated 07.03.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.42902 of 2016
7. Thus, the entire disciplinary proceedings, commencing from the
inception of the enquiry, till the order passed by the appellate authority,
is based on “no evidence.” By applying the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India Vs. H.C.Goel,
(cited supra), the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained.
8. Though this court intends to interfere with the order of
punishment, it has also taken into account of the fact that the petitioners
had given a room for being implicated in a criminal case, as well as the
departmental action and therefore, if the backwages payable to them from
the date of the dismissal till the date of their reinstatement is withheld,
the ends of justice could be secured.
9. In the light of the above observation, the impugned order passed
by the second respondent in Proceedings No.6667/Po4/14 dated
15.10.2015, in so far as the first petitioner herein/P.Rajasekar is
concerned and the impugned order in Proceedings No.6668/Po4/14 dated
15.10.2015 passed by the second respondent, in so far as the second
petitioner viz., K. Sankaranarayanan, as well as the order passed in the
appeal by the first respondent in his Proceedings No.3895/mu/2016,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.42902 of 2016
12.09.2016 in so far as it relates to P. Rajasekar is concerned and the
order passed by the first respondent in Proceedings No.3894/mu/2016
relating to K.Sankaranarayanan, are quashed. Consequently, the
petitioners herein are directed to be reinstated into service, together with
all consequential service benefits, from the date of the order of the
dismissal i.e., from 15.10.2015 onwards. It is made clear that the
petitioners shall not be entitled for any monetary benefits during their
period of non-employment, viz., between 15.10.2015, to the date of
reinstatement, including backwages.
10. In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed accordingly. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.07.2021
(2/2)
Index:Yes / No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
gv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.42902 of 2016
M.S.RAMESH.,J.
gv
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Prison,
Coimbatore Circle,
Coimbatore.
2.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
W.P.No.42902 of 2016
and
WMP.No.36797 of 2016
19.07.2021
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
