Madras High Court
A.Sekar vs The Secretary To Government on 30 November, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
and
M.P(MD).Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014
A.Sekar ... Petitioner
vs..
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home (SC) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Trichy District.
4.The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the impugned Memorandum of Charge in Rc.No.232501/ Con V(2)/2004-3 dated
07.04.2005, impugned enquiry report of the third respondent, dated 28.04.2007
and impugned punishment of third respondent dated, 27.05.2008 and the
consequent impugned order of first respondent in G.O.2(D) No.228 Home (SC)
Department, dated 21.04.2008, quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents herein to pay the increment and pay on par with other similarly
placed Inspector of Police, CBCID, and to pay the arrears increment with effect
from 01.04.2009 within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Janakiramulu
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan,
Government Advocate.
For R-4 : Mr.J.Anandha Kumar
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the impugned Memorandum of Charge, dated 07.04.2005,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
impugned enquiry report of the third respondent dated 28.04.2007 and impugned
punishment of third respondent dated 27.05.2008 and the consequent impugned
order of first respondent in G.O.2(D) No.228 Home (SC) Department dated
21.04.2008 and consequently direct the respondents herein to pay the increment
and pay on par with other similarly placed Inspector of Police, CBCID, and to pay
the arrears increment with effect from 01.04.2009.
2. The petitioner was appointed on 16.04.1999 and his service was
regularized on the same day on 16.04.1999. When the petitioner was working as
Inspector of Police, CBCID, Sivagangai, a Charge Memo, dated 07.04.2005 is
issued stating as follows:
“i. That on 08.11.2001 when I was working as Sub Inspector
of Police at Thillai Nagar Police Station, Trichy, I alleged to have
mentioned in my note book that I left the station at 14.00 hours for
performing the work of checking up beat between 14.00 hours and
22.45 hours, but contrarily on 08.11.2001 at 17.15hours, I alleged
to have checked PC 2457 Ravichandran at Farmers's Shandy and
recorded this in the Beat Book (No.55), but I have not recorded it in
my note book and in the note book of the said PC and also in the
Thillai Nagar Station General Diary on 08.11.2001; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
ii. That on 08.11.2001 at 20.30 hours, I alleged to have
come to Thillainagar Police Station, a person running a jewel shop
at Salai Road came to the station and reported to me about a theft
at his shop and I alleged to have directed and sent HC-376
Thangavel to go to the spot and enquire at about 20.45 hours, but
contrarily, I alleged to have recorded in my note book that I left the
station at 14.00 hours on 08.11.2001 and have also intentionally
not recorded my visit to the station at 20.30 hours, the report of
theft case and my stay at the station till 20.45hours in my note book
and station General Diary.”
3. The petitioner submitted an explanation refusing the charges. The
petitioner submitted that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated on a
very flimsy ground, vide charge memo, dated 07.04.2005, that too after lapse of
four years. The petitioner has stated that since it was during Deepavali time and
due to heavy bandobust duty the petitioner could not make proper entries in the
book and it is neither intentional nor failure on his part, the same has not proved
and it has been alleged without proper verification or evidence on record.
4. As far as the second charge, when the jewel shop owner preferred a theft
complaint, the petitioner had directed one HC-376 Thangavel at 20.45 pm, to visit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
the spot and to make enquiry but had entered false entry in the book that the
petitioner had left the police station by 14 pm. The allegation against the
petitioner that the petitioner had come to station by 20.30 pm and enquired until
20.45 pm but had not entered the same in the note book. For this the petitioner
has submitted that on 08.11.2001 the petitioner left Thillai Nagar police station
for beat checkup and made entries in the beat book of PC 2457 Ravichandran and
went for bandobust work, in view of the Deepavali festival and came to the
Thillai Nagar police station only at 22.45 hours and not 20.30 hours as alleged in
the second charge. The petitioner states that since he was not in the police station
between 20.30 hours and 20.45 hours, he did not know about any compliant by
the jewel shop owner and there is no possibility of directing the Thangavel to
visit the spot.
5. Based on the above explanation, an enquiry was ordered and the
petitioner had participated in the enquiry. Two witnesses of the respondent
Thangvel, PC 376 and Ayythurai, PC294 turned hostile and in the cross-
examination denied that they were not present at the Thillai Nagar Police Station.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
As far as the said Ravichandran is concerned, he has admitted in the cross
examination that he did not keep his note book during the beat check up carried
out by the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he came to the
Police Station only after the bandobust duty at 22.45p.m., on 08.11.2011. The
third witness for the respondent has also given a contradictory statement
falsifying the charge against the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has stated since, there is no complaint about the alleged
theft and no identity of complainant and no proof for location of shop, the claim
of the petitioner is that there is no such occurrence at all, as stated in the second
charge. The petitioner had submitted an explanation and also submitted further
explanation. Thereafter, the first respondent imposed the punishment with
stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, vide the
impugned G.O.2(D)No.228, dated 21.04.2008. Aggrieved over the petitioner
submitted a review application to the first respondent on 25.06.2008. The first
respondent has obtained consent and approval from the fourth respondent,
TNPSC for the proposed punishment and finally dismissed the Review Petition,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
vide G.O.(2D)No.541 Home (SC) Department, dated 16.11.2010, confirming the
punishment of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations,
dated 18.04.2011 and 28.06.2011, requesting for grant of Selection Grade and
again submitted representation, dated 31.08.2011, for granting promotion as
Inspector of Police.
7. The respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the
petitioner was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, Thillai Nagar police station,
Trichy, reiterated the charges and for all these irregularities disciplinary
proceedings was initiated. Since the petitioner is serving in disciplined service, it
is incumbent to carry out entries in beat book and the note book. The Enquiry
Officer has stated that the petitioner has not carried out any proper entries in the
books and the punishment awarded is legally valid.
8. Heard Mr.V.Janakiramulu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.J.K.Jayaselan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 and 3. Mr.J.Anandha Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
respondent 4.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the circular
issued, vide letter, (MS).No.118/Per-N/87 Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(per-N) Department, dated 22.12.1987, for any investigation confirming all
charges etc., should be completed within four months. The petitioner relied on the
Supreme Court judgment report 2005 (4) CTC 403, where it has been specifically
stated that the delay of ten years in initiating disciplinary proceedings and
issuance of Charge Memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated
and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating
such proceedings of charge memo, would justify the prayer for quashing the
proceedings. On perusing the records it is seen that the delinquencies alleged has
taken place on 08.11.2011, wherein the charge was issued on 18.04.2005, which
is belated one. Moreover the charges are the petitioner has not entered proper
entries in the beat book, station diary which is flimsy.
10. The petitioner also submitted that he served in the department with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
unblemished records and he was awarded R.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for his
meritorious service and the respondents have not denied this fact. Admittedly, a
Charge Memo was issued after a long lapse of 4 years and the charge is very
flimsy for which initiating disciplinary proceedings after four years will vitiate
the entire proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings against the Government
employee ought to be avoided not only in the interest of the Government
employee but also in the interest of public and also in the interest of installing
confidence in the minds of the Government employees. Since in the present case,
the petitioner is a meritorious candidate, this enquiry would harass the petitioner
and the punishment awarded is also on higher side and liable to be set aside.
11. Therefore, this Court set aside the impugned order and consequently the
respondents are directed to pay increment on par with other similarly placed
persons and pay the arrears. This excise shall be carried out within six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
jbr
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home (SC) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
Chennai 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Trichy District.
4.The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
S.SRIMATHY, J
jbr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16373 of 2014
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
