Madras High Court
M.Senthil Kumar vs The Director General Of Police on 2 June, 2023
1 W.P.(MD)NO.17404 OF 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.17404 of 2020 and
W.M.P.(MD)No.14540 of 2020
M.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range, Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in
his proceedins in C.No.F1/PR.17/2014 u/r.3(b) dated 14.10.2016 which
was modified by the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his
proceedings in C.No.A4/3038/AP/2017 dated 20.11.2017 which has been
confirmed by the proceedings issued by the first respondent in his
proceedings in RC.No.123736/AP 2(3) /2019 dated 3.6.2019 and quash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
2 W.P.(MD)NO.17404 OF 2020
the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently directing the
respondents to pay all attendant and monetary benefits to the plaintiff .
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayraj,
for M/s.Veera Associates.
For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar,
Government Advocate.
***
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The writ petitioner joined the police department as Grade-II
police constable in the year 2003. He was implicated in a criminal case in
Crime No.364 of 2012 registered on the file of Melur police station for
the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 506(ii) r/w.379(NP) of
IPC. In this regard, charge memo dated 29.01.2014 was issued. The
charge framed against the petitioner was that the petitioner along with
others had assaulted one Murugesan and his son Madhankumar and
thereby brought disrepute to the uniformed force. The petitioner offered
his explanation. An enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer
submitted his report dated 19.08.2014 and held that the charge was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 W.P.(MD)NO.17404 OF 2020
proved. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner. His
further explanation was obtained on 26.05.2015. Thereafter, the
disciplinary authority, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Madurai
District, passed an order dated 14.10.2016 agreeing with the finding of
the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of postponement of
increment for two years with cumulative effect. Challenging the same,
the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Madurai Range. The appellate authority passed an order dated
20.11.2017 confirming the finding of guilt. He however interfered with
the quantum of punishment. The punishment imposed on the petitioner
was reduced to postponement of increment for a period of one year
without cumulative effect. The petitioner filed mercy petition before the
first respondent and it was also dismissed on 03.06.2019. Challenging
the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all
the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition
and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant
relief as prayed for.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 W.P.(MD)NO.17404 OF 2020
4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned
Government Advocate took me through its contents and prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record.
6. The first contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the
criminal case ended in acquittal on 27.10.2015 in C.C.No.179 of 2014 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur and that this aspect of the matter
was not taken note of by the authorities. He also relied on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.M.Tank case and contended that where the
disciplinary action as well as the criminal proceedings are grounded on
the same set of facts and where the criminal case ended in acquittal, a
finding of guilt cannot be rendered by the disciplinary authority.
7. This contention will not hold good for more than one reason.
The subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court have considerably
diluted the proposition laid down in G.M.Tank case. It is now well settled
that while the criminal case can end in acquittal, the disciplinary action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 W.P.(MD)NO.17404 OF 2020
can conclude adversely against the delinquent employee. However, to
satisfy my conscience, I went through the judgment of acquittal. It is
unsatisfactory to say the least. Since the judgment of acquittal has
become final, I do not want to make any further comment thereon. I
would only remark that it would be most unsafe for the petitioner to rely
on the judgment of acquittal in these proceedings. I leave the matter at
that.
8. It is not as if the enquiry officer had arbitrarily found the
petitioner guilty of the charge. One of the victims namely, Murugesan
was examined as P.W.1 in the enquiry. He stood his ground. The
petitioner cross-examined the said witness. He could not shake him at all.
The testimony of the witness remained unshaken till the end. After
considering the entire materials on record including the evidence
adduced by the delinquent, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion
that the charge against the petitioner stood established. The standard of
proof in a departmental enquiry is “proof based on some evidence”. The
disciplinary authority need not prove the case against the delinquent
beyond reasonable doubt. Even if there is some credible material, that is
more than sufficient. In this case as many as three authorities have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 W.P.(MD)NO.17404 OF 2020
examined the materials and come to the conclusion that the petitioner is
guilty. The learned Government Advocate relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998
(UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. SUBRATA NATH) for the
proposition that the writ Court will not be justified in re-appreciating the
evidence in disciplinary proceedings. I do not find any ground to
interfere. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.06.2023
NCS : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PMU
To:
1. The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range, Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 W.P.(MD)NO.17404 OF 2020
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
W.P.(MD)No.17404 of 2020
02.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
