Madras High Court
M.Senthil Kumar vs The Director General Of Police on 12 October, 2023
2023/MHC/4670
W.A.(MD) No.1571 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD) No.1571 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.12190 of 2023
M.Senthil Kumar ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Director General of Police
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore, Chennai District
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Madurai Range
Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai District
3.The Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Superintendent of Police
Madurai District ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 02.06.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.17404 of 2020, on the file of
this Court.
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1571 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.Ramasundarvijayraj
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 02.06.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.17404 of 2020.
2. The appellant / writ petitioner joined in 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) read with 379 (NP) of
I.P.C. A charge memo was issued to the appellant on 29.01.2014 under Rule
3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1955. The appellant submitted his explanations and an Enquiry
Officer was appointed, who in turn conducted an enquiry and submitted a
report to the Disciplinary Authority / Superintendent of Police, Madurai
District on 19.08.2014, holding that the charge against the appellant was
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1571 of 2023
proved. The copy of the enquiry report was served on the appellant and he
submitted his further explanations to the Disciplinary Authority. The
Disciplinary Authority passed an order, dated 14.10.2016, agreeing with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed a punishment of postponement of
increment for two years with cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the
appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range, who in turn modified the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority to the effect of postponement of increment for a period
of one year without cumulative effect. The mercy petition filed by the
appellant before the Director General of Police was dismissed. Challenging the
order passed by the Appellate Authority modifying the punishment imposed by
the Disciplinary Authority, the appellant filed the writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge considered the issues as well as the
nature of the charge proved against the appellant and dismissed the writ
petition by order dated 02.06.2023. Thus, the appellant is constrained to
move this writ appeal.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1571 of 2023
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contended
that the appellant was acquitted from the criminal charge and therefore, he is
entitled to be exonerated from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The
learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect and thus, this writ appeal
has been filed.
5. The procedures to be followed in the departmental disciplinary
proceedings and the criminal case are distinct and different. High standard of
proof is required to convict a person under the Criminal Law. However, no
such strict proof is required to punish an employee under the Discipline and
Appeal Rules. Benefit of doubt is a ground to grant acquittal in the criminal
proceedings. Preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish an
employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Therefore, mere acquittal in
the criminal case cannot be a ground to seek exoneration from the
departmental disciplinary proceedings. Even in case of acquittal in the
criminal case, the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to conduct an
independent enquiry and punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal
Rules. This being the principles to be followed, we find no infirmity in the
findings of the learned Single Judge.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1571 of 2023
6. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed and the order dated
02.06.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.17404 of 2020, is confirmed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.L.N., J.]
12.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai District.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1571 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.1571 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.12190 of 2023
12.10.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
