Madras High Court
R.Janardhanan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 October, 2023
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
R.Janardhanan
S/o.Ramadoss ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur.
3.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 600 004. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him
in PR No.16/2000 dated 31.10.2000, confirmed by the second respondent in
C.No.B2/4087/2009 dated 07.06.2010 and modified by the third respondent
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
in his RC No.203810/API(1)/2015 dated 31.01.2015 and the consequential
order passed by the first respondent in D.O.No.483/2015 in
C.No.K2/4584/2015 dated 12.05.2015 and D.No.536/2015 in
C.No.A1/9228/2015 dated 08.06.2015 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkat Ramani, Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Dr.T.Seenivasan
Special Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned
orders passed by the first respondent in PR No.16/2000 dated 31.10.2000,
confirmed by the second respondent in C.No.B2/4087/2009 dated
07.06.2010 and modified by the third respondent in his RC
No.203810/API(1)/2015 dated 31.01.2015 and the consequential order
passed by the first respondent in D.O.No.483/2015 in C.No.K2/4584/2015
dated 12.05.2015 and D.No.536/2015 in C.No.A1/9228/2015 dated
08.06.2015.
2. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
2.1. The petitioner was working as Grade-II Police Constable at
Nagapttinam District and upgraded to Grade-I Police Constable in the year
1997 and as Head Constable in the year 2002. The petitioner was due for
upgradation as Special Sub-Inspector on 01.04.2010, but it was postponed
and finally, he was upgraded as Special Sub-Inspector on 31.12.2012. The
petitioner has received more than 100 rewards and has not come to adverse
notice so far.
2.2. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally under Rule 3(b) of
Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1955 in PR No.16/2000 by the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam,
dated 06.06.2000 for the following delinquencies:
(i) Gross neglect of duty and highly reprehensible conduct by demanding a
bribe of Rs.4,000/- on 25.08.1998 while working at Voimedu Police
Station, from Tr.S.A.Balasubramanian S/o.Arumugam of Maruthur north
village, Vedaranyam Taluk for not foisting prohibition case against him.
(ii)Gross neglect of duty and highly reprehensible conduct by demanding a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
bribe of Rs.2,500/- from Tr.Veeraiyan S/o.Sonnasi, Maruthur South
Vedaranyum Taluk for deleting his name from Voimedu PS,
Cr.No.202/1998 u/s.363 IPC and accepted the bribe money of Rs.2,500/-
during August'1998.
2.3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedaranyam, was
appointed as Enquiry Officer and he conducted an oral enquiry and held that
Charge No.1 was proved and Charge No.2 was not proved. The disciplinary
authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed
punishment of reduction in time scale of pay for 2 years by stages with
cumulative effect. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range,
Thanjavur. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated
06.01.2001. Since the petitioner was denied promotion on account of
punishment imposed on him, he filed a mercy petition before the Director
General of Police, Tamil Nadu, however, the same was rejected on
11.09.2003. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner approached this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
by filing W.P.No.28772 of 2004 and this Court, by order dated 11.03.2009,
set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the second respondent to
pass a reasoned order on merits. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's batch
mates promoted as Special Sub Inspectors of Police and the petitioner was
subsequently promoted on 01.03.2012 after giving effect to the punishment.
2.4. The second respondent once again considered the case of the
petitioner and rejected the same by order dated 07.06.2010. However, in
respect of co-delinquents, the punishment was modified to one of reduction
in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect,
but, in the case of petitioner, the original punishment was confirmed.
2.5. The petitioner again submitted a mercy petition to the Director
General of Police on 30.06.2014 requesting to set aside the punishment of
postponement of increment for two years with cumulative effect on the
ground of discrimination, but, the first respondent did not forward the
papers to the third respondent on the ground that the petitioner's mercy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
petition has already been rejected on 11.03.2009. While doing so, the first
respondent has failed to take note of the fact that the order of respondents 2
and 3 has already been set aside on 11.03.2009 by this Court. Hence, the
petitioner once again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.28449 of
2014 requesting to pass orders on the mercy petition dated 30.06.2014. This
Court, by order dated 31.10.2014, directed the third respondent to pass
orders on the mercy petition in accordance with law within a period of eight
(8) weeks. Again, by order dated 31.01.2015, the third respondent held that
the punishment is not excessive, but, modified the punishment into one of
postponement of two increments for two years without cumulative effect,
which will not have effects on his future increments since this will have
electric effect not only on the promotion of the petitioner but also reduction
in his salary. The punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay was
given effect to from 2000 to 2002 and consequently, the petitioner was
given promotion as Special Sub-Inspector of Police on 31.12.2012 with
effect from 01.01.2013. The punishment of postponement of increment for
two years with cumulative effect was given effect to from 2002-14 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
consequently, the upgradation of the petitioner as Special Sub-Inspector of
Police was postponed to 01.01.2014, a reduction of one year. Though the
punishment was modified, it cannot be given effect to. Hence, the petitioner
has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking for the
aforesaid relief.
3. Heard Mr.K.Venkat Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
petitioner and Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader,
appearing for respondents.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the
first charge against the petitioner was held to be proved based on the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. Both the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are
unacceptable since the evidence of PW-1 is highly motivated and
prejudiced, since the petitioner was the cause for investigation in the case
filed against PW-1 and PW-2 is not a direct evidence, it is only a
circumstantial evidence. Even by preponderance of probability, it cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
accepted for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has
committed the delinquency.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents
submitted that during the enquiry, PW-1 had clearly deposed about the
demand of illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- made by the petitioner from
him for not foisting prohibition case against him. Further, the evidence of
PW-1 was corroborated by PW-2. Hence, considering the evidence as
against the petitioner and the gravity of charges, the first respondent
imposed punishment, which was confirmed by the second respondent. After
considering the issue in detail, the mercy petitions filed by the petitioner
were dismissed. Upon conducting an enquiry and after carefully taking into
account the materials placed, the first respondent has imposed the
punishment against the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the
second respondent and thereafter, modified by the third respondent. Hence,
the orders, which are under challenge, do not require the interference of this
Court.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
materials on record.
7. The charge of illegal demand of Rs.4,000/- from one
Mr.S.A.Balasubramanian for not foisting prohibition case against him was
framed against the petitioner and two others. There is no material to show
that it was only the petitioner, who demanded illegal gratification.
Moreover, there is also discrimination in awarding the punishment to the
petitioner since the co-delinquent against whom both charges have been
proved, was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for a period
of one year, whereas, in the case of the petitioner, only one charge was
proved for which a punishment of postponement of increment for two years
with cumulative effect has been imposed. When such grounds were raised
by the petitioner in the mercy petition, the third respondent, who is expected
to consider all the points raised by the petitioner, has simply rejected the
mercy petition without giving reasons. This Court had remitted the matter
back to the authorities to consider afresh since this Court was of the view
that the order was passed without taking into account the grounds raised by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
the petitioner and this Court, while remitting the matter back, had
specifically stated that the authorities should pass orders only after
considering all the grounds raised by the petitioner on merits, but, thereafter
also, the authorities had failed to consider the points raised by the petitioner
and passed a non-speaking order rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
Moreover, when it was the case of the respondents that no prohibition case
was pending against Mr.S.A.Balasubramanian, then there was no need for
the petitioner to demand illegal gratification from him for not foisting a
prohibition case against him. PW-2 is also not a direct evidence in this case.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the authorities have passed the
orders without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that
the orders impugned herein require the interference of this Court and the
same are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
passed by the first respondent in PR No.16/2000 dated 31.10.2000,
confirmed by the second respondent in C.No.B2/4087/2009 dated
07.06.2010 and modified by the third respondent in his RC
No.203810/API(1)/2015 dated 31.01.2015 and the consequential order
passed by the first respondent in D.O.No.483/2015 in C.No.K2/4584/2015
dated 12.05.2015 and D.No.536/2015 in C.No.A1/9228/2015 dated
08.06.2015 are hereby set aside. No costs.
03.10.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
Neutral citation:Yes/No
gm
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur.
3.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 600 004.
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN., J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
gm
Writ Petition No.158 of 2017
03.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
