Madras High Court
The Principal Secretary To ... vs B. Jayakumar on 5 October, 2021
W.A. No. 546 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 546 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No. 2167 of 2021
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (SC) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director General of Police,
Chennai -4.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur. ..Appellants
Vs.
B. Jayakumar ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 16.07.2019 passed in
W.P. No. 8315 of 2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 546 of 2021
For Appellants :: Mr.K. Tippu Sultan
Govt. Advocate
For Respondent :: M/s. Bala & Daisy
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
The present writ appeal has been preferred as against the order dated
16.07.2019 passed in W.P. No. 8315 of 2009.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner joined Police Service as a
directly recruited Sub Inspector of Police on 01.04.1970 and got subsequent
promotions to the posts of Inspector of Police and Superintendent of Police.
While serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police, he was issued with a
charge memo containing five charges alleging that he demanded and
accepted illegal gratification from wine shops at Mannargudi during the
period from 05.07.2001 to 25.03.2002 and he was suspended from service
on 04.10.2005. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated. In the meantime,
the writ petitioner was not allowed to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.05.2006 and retained in service. In the domestic
enquiry conducted, out of five charges framed against the writ petitioner,
charges 1 to 4 were held proved and he was imposed with the punishment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 546 of 2021
dismissal from service by proceedings dated 23.12.2008 after obtaining
opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The said order
was challenged before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single
Judge, on considering the materials on records and the rival submissions, set
aside the dismissal order and allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved over the
same, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the respondents in the
writ petition.
3. According to the appellants, the charges framed against the
respondent/writ petitioner are serious in nature and out of five charges, four
charges have been held to be proved in the enquiry conducted after
consideration of oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the order of
dismissal from service ought not to have been set aside. Further, the
appellants would submit when there is categorical evidence by P.W.5 with
regard to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the learned Single
Judge had erroneously interfered with the punishment imposed observing
that the complaint against the writ petitioner itself was based on hearsay
evidence and hearsay evidence was not proved.
4. On the other hand, according to the 1st respondent/writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 546 of 2021
petitioner, there was no fair and proper enquiry conducted. When the
prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that he had conducted regular
raids in wine shops, the Enquiry Officer, without considering his
explanation, had held that out of five charges, charges 1 to 4 had been
proved and before imposing the punishment, opinion from Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission was sought, which, after considering the
materials on record, had stated in its report that charges 1 to 4 do not
disclose the purpose for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and
stated that only the fifth charge had been proved, contrary to the finding of
the Enquiry Officer, but went on to concur with the punishment imposed by
the Enquiry Officer, which was rightly set aside by the learned Single
Judge.
5. Heard both parties.
6. Both parties agree that Tamil Nadu Pension Rules are
applicable, but no orders have been passed under Rule 9 of Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules. The respondent had continued under suspension till he
attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2006 and further extended and
retained in sevice in view of the pending charges and the punishment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 546 of 2021
dismissal was imposed, after enquiry, by order dated 23.12.2008. When the
departmental proceedings should have been continued and punishment
should have been imposed, in terms of the provision of Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules, the order of dismissal passed as against the respondent is liable to be
interfered with. Eventhough the learned Single Judge has held that the
charges are not established, as no proceedings have been conducted after
retirement under Pension Rules, we are of the view that there is no need to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is
accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
nv 05.10.2021
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 546 of 2021
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
nv
W.A. No. 546 of 2021
05.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
