Madras High Court
V.Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 27 April, 2022
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD).No.24214 of 2018
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.21899 to 21901 of 2018
V.Murugesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range,
Dindigul.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Peraiyur Sub Division,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating
to the impugned orders passed by the fourth respondent in C.No.F11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
P.R.No.69/2006, dated 14.02.2011, the second respondent in
C.No.A4/4504/SM77/2011, dated 08.08.2011 and the first respondent in
RC.No.045765/87/AP.II(3)/2013, dated 03.11.2016, and quash the same
as illegal and further direct the fourth respondent to provide due
promotion to petitioner as per the service records along with monetary
benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai
Government Advocate (Civil Side)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the impugned orders passed by the fourth
respondent in C.No.F11 P.R.No.69/2006, dated 14.02.2011, the second
respondent in C.No.A4/4504/SM77/2011, dated 08.08.2011 and the first
respondent in RC.No.045765/87/AP.II(3)/2013, dated 03.11.2016 and
further direct the fourth respondent to provide due promotion to
petitioner as per the service records along with monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner while he was working in the Armed Reserve
Police, Madurai District on 17.09.2002, the duty Sub Inspector of Police
appointed the petitioner for VIP-PSO duty to Mr.Murugavelrajan, Former
MLA of Vanthavasi Constituency, who was attached with Pattali Makkal
Katchi. On 05.10.2003, the Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
appointed one Mr.Jeyaraman, Grade I Police as PSO of the Ex.MLA. On
17.01.2006, the Sub Inspector of Police, Melur appointed the petitioner
as PSO of the Ex. MLA and the petitioner discharged his duty properly.
3. On 22.06.2005, the said Mr.Murugavelrajan, siting MLA of
Vanthavasi Constituency went to E.Aavarampatti Village, Nilakkottai
Taluk, Dindigul District to participate in the funeral function of his
maternal grandmother. The petitioner went along with him as his
security. On that day, a dispute arose between the Scheduled Caste and
non-Schedule Caste people. The said Mr.Murugavelrajan lodged a
complaint before the Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station and
upon receiving the complaint, the police registered an FIR against more
than 200 persons in Crime No.92 of 2005 for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 336, 323, 324, 427, 379 of IPC (NP) and
Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act.
4. On 24.07.2005, when the said MLA was proceeding towards
Dindigul, while his car was crossing Aavarampatti Village, few persons
attacked his car unexpectedly. The petitioner and one Mr.Govindarajan
protected the MLA by discharging their duties. In respect of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
occurrence on 24.07.2005, the said MLA lodged a complaint before the
Superintendent of Police, Dindigul. The police registered a FIR in Crime
No.182 of 2005, in which the petitioner had been arrayed as A10 at the
time of filing charge sheet but the petitioner's name was not mentioned in
the FIR. The Ammaiyanayaknoor Police filed charge sheet and it was
taken on file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai as C.C.No.
178 of 2006 and after full trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Nilakkottai acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 25.08.2010.
5. The fourth respondent initiated a departmental proceeding in
PR.No.69 of 2006 under Rule 3 (b) of the TNPSS (D&A) Rules, 1955.
Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his
report on 01.02.2008. The fourth respondent did not pass any order on
the report. In such circumstances, the fourth respondent vide order dated
31.03.2009, upgraded sixteen Grade I Police as Head Constables and
because of pendency of PR No.69 of 2006, the petitioner's name was not
considered for up gradation to the post of Head Constables. The fourth
respondent ought to have upgraded the petitioner as Head Constable on
25.10.2008. Since the fourth respondent had not passed any order in
pursuance of the fifth respondent's report, the petitioner should have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
been upgraded the petitioner to the post of Head Constable but he failed
to do so.
6. However, the fourth respondent vide his order dated 14.02.2011
reduced the petitioner's time scale pay by three stages for three years with
cumulative effect. Thereafter, the second respondent, who was holding
the additional charge of the third respondent in the relevant point of time
vide his proceedings in C. No. A4/4504/SM-77/2011, dated 08.08.2011,
based on the order of the fourth respondent, by invoking his suo-motu
power and modified the punishment that of postponement of increment
for one year without cumulative effect. The second respondent while
passing his review order, failed to see that the criminal case which was
pending against the petitioner, ended with acquittal.
7. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first
respondent and prayed to cancel the punishment imposed on the
petitioner and it was rejected vide order, dated 03.11.2016 on the ground
that the criminal case ended with acquittal cannot be accepted as its
requires high standard of proof for conviction in criminal Court and it is
not necessary for finding a person guilty in a disciplinary enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
Aggrieved over the punishment order and the consequential fact of not
granting promotion, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
8. The fourth respondent has filed counter stating that the
petitioner did not discharge his official duty properly and sincerely.
When the petitioner was working in the Armed Reserve, Madurai as VIP-
PSO to MLA and on 24.07.2005, the petitioner along with
Mr.Murugavelrajan former MLA went to Kalladipatti Village. In front of
the Paramasivam Tea Shop one Murugan S/o Mayandi Thevar was
assaulted by the petitioner along with the other accused and caused
injury. The petitioner who is working in the Police Department instead of
preventing the law & order problem, he along with the group assaulted
Murugan and for this, a case was registered in Ammayanaikanur Police
Station. After thorough investigation, the investigating officer has filed
charge sheet before the Court, wherein, the petitioner was arrayed as
A-10 in the charge sheet since the petitioner has committed the offence.
9. The petitioner was awarded with the punishment of reduction in
pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect and on suo-
moto review, the above punishment was modified into that of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative
effect. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and
the same was rejected. The appellate authority has passed a detailed
order, wherein, it has been stated that the criminal case ended in
acquittal, as the charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The petitioner's contention to drop action in the PR is not acceptable, as
there is no need to drop action in the departmental proceedings even
when the criminal case ended in acquittal. Because, a criminal Court
requires high standard of proof for conviction while such proof is not
necessary for findings a person guilty in a disciplinary enquiry. In a
disciplinary proceedings, it is preponderance of probabilities which
matters to fix the delinquent's guilt. Therefore, the appellate authority has
rejected the petitioner's appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the materials on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
11. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was discharging
his duties as Personal Security Officer to the Ex-MLA. The contention of
the petitioner is that he was not arrayed as accused while filing the FIR
but subsequently, in the charge sheet, the petitioner was arrived as
Accused 10. The petitioner while discharging his duty as Personal
Security Officer, there was a dispute with the said Murugan. The
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with others
beaten the Murugan. The contention of the petitioner is that he has not
beaten the Murugan but he was standing in the spot but the respondents
without any records they included the petitioner's name in the charge
sheet. The learned Judicial Magistrate has held that the petitioner is not
involved in the alleged offence. In such circumstances, the punishment of
stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect is
erroneous. Moreover, the petitioner has served in service and has spotless
carrier. The impugned punishment is affected the petitioner for his future
promotions.
12. On seeing the record, the respondents have not taken into
account the acquittal order passed by the criminal Court. Even though,
the proof is necessary for convicting the person in criminal Court. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
observations made in the Criminal Court can be considered while
deciding the issues in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the punishment is liable to be interfered
more so, when it is affecting the promotion of the petitioner. Therefore,
the impugned order is liable to be set aside and hence the impugned order
is set aside. The respondents are directed to implement the order with all
the consequential benefits. The petitioner's name shall be considered in
the list of promotion if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. The said
exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
13. With this above direction, the writ petition stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.04.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range,
Dindigul.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Peraiyur Sub Division,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
S.SRIMATHY, J.
sn
W.P(MD)No.24214 of 2018
27.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
