Madras High Court
J.Subburaj vs The Director General Of Police on 26 October, 2022
W.P.No.249 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.249 of 2020
J.Subburaj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Dy. Inspector General of Police,
Coimbatore Range,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruppur District.
Tiruppur. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to the impugned orders in :
i) Rc. No.152494/AP.1 (1)/2019 dated 28.06.2019 passed by the 1st
respondent, confirming the order in
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.249 of 2020
ii) C.No.D2/6546/2018 dated 04.07.2018 passed by the 2nd
respondent, confirming the order in
iii) PR No.F1/PR 06/2017 U/R. 3 (b) dated 17.04.2018 passed by the
3rd respondent;
Quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate
petitioner in service with all attendant service benefits and back wages with
effect from 17.04.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders (a) dated
28.06.2019 passed by the first respondent, (b) dated 04.07.2018 passed by
the second respondent and (c) dated 17.04.2018 passed by the third
respondent, confirming the dismissal of service order issued against the
petitioner, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
2. The petitioner was a Grade-I Constable. Disciplinary proceedings
were initiated against him and a charge memo was issued to him on
02.02.2017 stating that he has married a second wife by name Josephine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.249 of 2020
Julia Mary. The Disciplinary Authority viz., the third respondent herein,
based on the enquiry report, ordered for removal of the petitioner from
service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the
second respondent, who also confirmed the orders of the Disciplinary
Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Mercy Petition before the first
respondent. The first respondent has also rejected the Mercy Petition,
confirming the orders of the second and third respondents. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
3. The petitioner contends, in this Writ Petition, that Josephine Julia
Mary has been given lesser punishment by the first respondent by his order
dated 07.08.2019 viz., "postponement of increment for a period of three
years which shall operate to postpone her future increments from the date
of original orders".
4. The petitioner also contends that the criminal prosecution launched
at the behest of his first wife has also ended in acquittal by the Judgment in
C.C.No.282 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur.
The petitioner contends that a categorical finding has been given in the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.249 of 2020
Judgment that the petitioner is innocent with regard to the offences charged
against him in the charge sheet.
5. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the
allegations of the petitioner and would reiterate their stand that only based
on the evidence available on record it has been proved that the petitioner has
married Josephine Julia Mary as the second wife during the life time of his
first wife. Therefore, according to them, the impugned orders have been
passed only in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this
Court to the order passed by the first respondent dated 07.08.2019,
pertaining to Josephine Julia Mary, whom the respondents contend that the
petitioner had married for the second time and would submit that her
punishment has been modified by the first respondent by taking a lenient
view and she has now been given the punishment of postponement of
increment for a period of three years instead of dismissal of service.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.249 of 2020
Court to the Judgment of the Criminal Court in which the petitioner as well
as Josephine Julia Mary have been acquitted and would submit that when a
categorical finding has been given by the Criminal Court that the petitioner
is innocent with regard to the commission of the alleged criminal offence, the
question of dismissal of the petitioner from service will not arise.
8. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would reiterate the contents of the Counter Affidavit filed by the
respondents before this Court.
9. Admittedly, the contentions raised by the petitioner in this Writ
Petition have not been considered by the first respondent. Admittedly, the
punishment, in so far as Josephine Julia Mary is concerned, has been
modified from removal of service to postponement of increment for a period
of three years. The charges framed against the petitioner as well as
Josephine Julia Mary are almost one and the same. The charge is that the
petitioner has married Josephine Julia Mary and his marriage with her is a
second marriage. Josephine Julia Mary is also working as a Police Constable
in the very same Department of the respondents. The first respondent has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.249 of 2020
taken a lenient view in so far as Josephine Julia Mary is concerned by
awarding lesser punishment.
10. As seen from the impugned order dated 28.06.2019, the same
yardstick has not been taken by the first respondent. In the impugned order,
the first respondent has confirmed the orders of the second and third
respondents by dismissing the petitioner from service. Since the contentions
of the petitioner, as raised in this Writ Petition, have not been considered by
the first respondent in the impugned order, the matter will have to be
remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and
in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
11. No prejudice would be caused to the first respondent, if such a
direction is issued by this Court.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the first respondent dated
28.06.2019 is alone quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first
respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law and
the first respondent is directed to pass final orders, after taking into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.249 of 2020
consideration the order dated 07.08.2019 passed in favour of Josephine Julia
Mary, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
13. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No
Costs.
26.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.249 of 2020
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Dy. Inspector General of Police,
Coimbatore Range,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruppur District.
Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.249 of 2020
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,
ab
W.P.No.249 of 2020
26.10.2022
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
