Madras High Court
B.Kumaresan vs The Director General Of Police on 16 August, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)No.4533 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.4533 of 2021
B.Kumaresan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range,
Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining
to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in P.R.No.3 of 2008 u/r
3(b) dated 07.07.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to regularize the service seniority and give the further promotion
for the post of SSI with monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram
For Respondents : Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia,
Special Government Pleader
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4533 of 2021
ORDER
Heard Mr.A.Rajaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated
07.07.2011 passed by the third respondent imposing the punishment of
“Reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for three years which shall not
operate to postpone his future increments”.
3. The petitioner was a Police Constable appointed on 09.06.1993. The
following charges were framed against him in the disciplinary proceedings
initiated by the third respondent:
(a). getting involved in smuggling of liquor bottles from Pondicherry
(UT) to the State of Tamil Nadu along with S.Kannan (his accomplice) and thus
leading to file an FIR (First Information Report) in Crime No.139 of 2007 for
the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) (aaa) and 4 (1)(A) of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 on 29.09.2007 at Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Uthamapalayam, Theni District, against him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(b). while in medical leave of 20 days from 18.09.2007 to 07.10.2007, the
petitioner left the headquarters (Kambam) without getting prior permission from
the higher officials.
4. The petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings conducted
by the Enquiry Officer and he was also allowed to cross-examine the
prosecution witnesses and only thereafter, the Enquiry Officer held in his
enquiry report that the charges framed against the petitioner has been proved.
Pursuant to the same, the impugned order came to be passed by the third
respondent on 07.07.2011 imposing the aforementioned punishment on him.
5. It is also seen from the documents filed along with this Writ Petition
that the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable only with effect from
01.01.2016. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent denying
that the impugned order passed by the third respondent is bad in law. In the
counter affidavit, the following are reiterated:
(a). the charges levelled against the petitioner in the disciplinary
proceedings are serious in nature as the petitioner had transported liquor bottles
and he was caught red handed on the date of the incident.
(b). Even though the criminal case registered against the petitioner had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
subsequently ended in acquittal, the same is not having any relevance with
regard to the disciplinary proceedings, since the petitioner was acquitted by
giving benefit of doubt to him. In so far as the disciplinary proceedings are
concerned, the same is decided on preponderance of probabilities and further,
the petitioner having been caught red handed carrying liquor bottles, the third
respondent has rightly passed the impugned order imposing the punishment on
the petitioner.
(c). the impugned order was passed in the year 2011, whereas, the Writ
Petition has been filed only in the year 2021 and on the ground of laches also,
the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
submitted during the course of her submissions reiterated the contents of the
counter affidavit filed by the third respondent.
7. Admittedly, the impugned order imposing the punishment on the
petitioner is dated 07.07.2011, whereas, the Writ Petition has been filed only in
the year 2021 after lapse of more than nine years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
since the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable by the order of the third
respondent dated 22.02.2017, there is no laches on the part of the writ petitioner
to approach this Court. However, as seen from the order of the third respondent
dated 22.02.2017, it pertains to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of
Head Constable, which has come into effect from 01.11.2016 only. That has
got no relevance with regard to the punishment imposed on the petitioner, viz.,
“Reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for three years which shall not
operate to postpone his future increments”.
9. Even though the impugned order imposing the punishment on the
petitioner was passed as early as on 07.07.2011, the petitioner has chosen to file
this Writ Petition only in the year 2021 without giving any proper explanation
as to why he did not file the Writ Petition immediately on receipt of the
impugned order dated 07.07.2011.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his
submissions would submit that the Enquiry Officer did not consider the fact that
the criminal case registered against the petitioner had ended in acquittal in his
enquiry report. However, it is seen from the judgment rendered by the Criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court, the petitioner has been acquitted only by giving benefit of doubt to him.
The disciplinary proceedings are conducted against delinquents based on
preponderance of probabilities and therefore, when the Criminal Court had
acquitted the petitioner only by giving benefit of doubt, the same is not of much
relevance in the disciplinary proceedings.
11. There is no infirmity in the decision of the Enquiry Officer to not give
weight to the Criminal Court judgment acquitting the petitioner, since the said
acquittal was only due to the fact that the benefit of doubt was given to the
petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner in the disciplinary
proceedings are serious in nature. The petitioner was a Police Constable when
he was caught red handed by the internal officials of the respondents for
transportation of liquor. The petitioner was also allowed to cross-examine the
prosecution witnesses by the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings.
Only based on the evidence available in the record, the Enquiry Officer had
come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner has been
proved and only based on the said Enquiry Report, the impugned punishment
order came to be passed by the third respondent on 07.07.2011. This Court
while deciding in Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot re-appreciate the evidence. When the decision of the respondents
under the impugned order is only based on the evidence available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Only based on the evidence available on record, the Enquiry Officer
in his report in the disciplinary proceedings has held that the charges framed
against the petitioner have been proved. Therefore, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the report of the Enquiry Officer. Even on the ground of laches and
hence, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable.
13. The impugned order was passed by the third respondent on
07.07.2011 itself imposing the punishment on the petitioner, but the petitioner
has filed this Writ Petition only in the year 2021. No proper and acceptable
reasons have been given by the petitioner for filing this Writ Petition on time.
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this
Writ Petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.
16.03.2024
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
TSG
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range,
Dindigul
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
TSG
16.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
