Madras High Court
M.Koothaperumal vs The Commissioner Of Police on 20 October, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
M.Koothaperumal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Town L & O Range,
Madurai City,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the impugned punishment order issued by the 1st respondent in
C.No.D1(1)/Appeal.07/14 dated 08.05.2014 confirming the order passed by the
2nd respondent in his proceedings j.g.vz;.51/2012 dated 26.03.2014 and quash
the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondent to confer all other
benefits including the settlement of suspension period as spent on duty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Md.Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/9
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the impugned order of punishment issued by the first
respondent in C.No.D1(1)/Appeal.07/14 dated 08.05.2014, confirming the
order passed by the second respondent dated 26.03.2014 and consequently, to
direct the respondent to confer all other benefits including the settlement of
suspension period as spent on duty.
2.The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition
are as follows.
The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on 01.01.1982 and
he was upgraded as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1995. The petitioner
was promoted as Special Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2010 and he
attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015 and retired from service.
While the petitioner was working as Special Sub-Inspector of Police at B-2
Meenakshi Amman Temple (L&O) Police Station, a charge memo was issued to
the petitioner alleging that he had involved in gambling by playing rummy for
money in a restaurant in Othakadai, Madurai. The specific charges framed
against the petitioner are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
“1.kJiu khefh; gp2 kPdhl;rpak;kd; nfhapy; rl;lk;
kw;Wk; xGq;F fhty; epiyaj;jpy; gzpg[hpe;j nghJ fle;j
07.01.2012k; njjpad;W 00.30 kzpastpy; kJiu xj;jf;fil
fhty; epiya rufj;jpy; cs;s njtnfhl;il Mr;rp bu];lhuz;oy;
rl;lj;jpw;F g[wk;ghf gzk; itj;J R{jhl;lj;jpy; <Lgl;L fhty;
Jiwf;F fsq;fk; tpistpj;j xGq;fPdkhd fz;of;fj;jf;f Fw;wk;;.
2.kJiu khefh; gp2 kPdhl;rpak;kd; nfhapy; rl;lk;
kw;Wk; xGq;F fhty; epiyaj;jpy; 06.01.2021k; njjpad;W 22.45
kzpastpy; gzpapy; fhzg;gl;lth; 07.01.2012 md;W 04.30
kzpf;F fhty; epiyaj;jpy; gzpf;F mwpf;if bra;a ntz;oath;
cah;mjpfhhpapd; mDkjp bgwhky; jd;dpr;irahf
jiyik ,lj;ij tpl;Lr; brd;W 07.01.2012 md;W Rkhh; 00.30
kzpastpy; kJiu xj;jf;fil fhty; epiya rufj;jpy; cs;s
njtnfhl;il Mr;rp bu];lhuz;oy; fhzg;gl;l xGq;fPdkhd
fz;of;fj;jf;f Fw;wk;.”
3.The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the
charges. Therefore, an enquiry officer was appointed and after holding enquiry,
enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority holding that the
charges framed against the petitioner are proved. By order dated 26.03.2014,
the disciplinary authority viz., the second respondent after giving a show cause
notice and hearing the petitioner, imposed the punishment of postponement of
increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the
punishment imposed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent after hearing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
petitioner held that though the charges are proved, reduced the punishment into
that of postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative
effect. Against which, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on
the same set of charges, a criminal case was registered and after completion of
investigation, a charge sheet has been filed and the same has been taken on file
in S.T.C.No.611 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. After
trial, the Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner from all charges. Since the
criminal case ended in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was discharged
from all the charges. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained.
The learned counsel further submitted that the order of the Criminal Court
ought to have been considered by the disciplinary authority as well as the
appellate authority. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the appellate
authority should apply his mind independently and that the first respondent has
mechanically passed the cryptic order and the decision was not arrived at on the
basis of any reasons which are expected. The learned counsel also submitted
that charges alleged against the petitioner are not grave warranting award of
major punishment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
5.The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH -VS-
K.SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 1968 SUPREME
COURT 825, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“12.We are also not satisfied that the protection of
section 14 is not available in this case. The game of Rummy is
not a game entirely of chance like the 'three-card' game
mentioned in the Madras case to which we were referred. The
'three card' game which goes under different names such as
'flush', 'brag' etc. is a game of pure chance. Rummy, on the
other hand, requires certain amount of skill because the fall of
the cards has to be memorised and the building up of Rummy
requires considerable skill in holding and discarding cards.
We cannot, therefore, say that the game of Rummy is a game of
entire chance. It is mainly and preponderantly a game of skill.
The chance in Rummy is of the same character as the chance
in a deal at a game of bridge. In fact in all games in which
cards are shuffled and dealt out, there is an element of chance,
because the distribution of the I cards is not according to any
set pattern but is dependent upon how the cards find their
place in the shuffled pack. From this alone it cannot be said
that Rummy is a game of chance and there is, no skill involved
in it. Of course, if there is evidence of gambling in some other
way or that the owner of the house or the club is making a
profit or gain from the game of Rummy or any other game
played for stakes, the offence may be brought home. In this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
case, these elements are missing and therefore we think that
the High Court was right in accepting the reference it did.
6.Stating that the charge does not indicate that the petitioner played
rummy for stakes and no witness was examined to prove that the petitioner
played the game for stakes, it is submitted by the petitioner that the charges are
not proved. This Court carefully gone through the records and found that the
petitioner has admitted the incident by which, he was arrested by the Police
along with 11 others.
7.From the verdict of the Criminal Court, it is obvious that the
petitioner had some internal support to come out freely in the criminal case.
The petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court holding that the charges
against the petitioner were not proved beyond doubt. It is to be noted that the
criminal Court had recorded the evidence and suggestions which would only
indicate that the petitioner was present on the spot. Playing cards, bed sheets
and money were recovered at the time of arresting the petitioner and others.
When there is no special motive attributed by the petitioner himself against the
officials, this Court is unable to accept the argument that there is no basis for
the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner was holding a
responsible post of Special Sub-Inspector of Police. On the date of incident, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
petitioner was on duty till 10.45 p.m., and it is stated that he was expected to
report for duty on 07.01.2012 at 04.30 a.m., but was found in a hotel/restaurant
along with his friends at 0.30 a.m., on 07.01.2012. Therefore, the petitioner has
clearly exhibited his lack of sincerity or honesty to the department in which he
was employed. Though the appellate authority viz., the first respondent has not
passed a detailed order, considering the past record of the petitioner reduced the
punishment into that of postponement of increment for a period of one year
without cumulative effect. The second respondent accepted the report of the
enquiry officer. Except the order of punishment, the petitioner has not produced
any records before this Court in support of his explanation offered in response
to the second show cause notice which was served along with the enquiry
report to the petitioner.
8.Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the explanation offered by
the petitioner,. As a matter of fact, the amount, that was seized at the time when
the petitioner and others were arrested, was shown as case property. It is to be
noted that none of the accused in the criminal case claimed the amount. The
verdict of criminal Court would only show that the acquittal by the Criminal
Court is not honourable. This Court finds no valid points or merits in this Writ
Petition to interfere with the order of punishment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
9.As a result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
20.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: yes / No
Ns
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 Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Town L & O Range,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
Ns
W.P.(MD).No.6882 of 2017
20.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
