Madras High Court
The Deputy Inspector General Of Police vs R.Jayaraman on 10 June, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.No.1828 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.1828 of 2021
and
CMP.No.11575 of 2021
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Salem, Salem District.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Salem, Salem District.
... Appellant
Vs.
R.Jayaraman
... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set
aside the order dated 21.01.2020 made in W.P.No.23801 of 2010.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : No Appearance
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1828 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The Writ Order setting aside the punishment of postponement of
increment for two years without cumulative effect is under challenge in the
present Writ Appeal preferred by the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
The respondent was working as Grade-I Police Constable. A charge
memorandum was issued under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and 4 charges were
framed. The respondent submitted his explanations denying the charges.
Not satisfying with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an
Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held that
the charge nos.(1) and (2) are proved and (3) and (4) are not proved. The
proved charges are as under:-
“(1) Leaving the headquarters police station i.e.,
Tholasampatty Police Station without any permission or leave
from the competent authority and visited Selliampalayam and
Thalaivasal, Attur Taluk on 14.02.2005.
(2) Reprehensible and indisciplinary conduct in having
absented for duties from 14.02.2005 night onwards for more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
than 21 days without any permission or leave from higher
officers and deserted the police force thus violated the Police
Standing Order No.95 Volume-I.”
2. Based on the proved charges,the Disciplinary Authority issued
second show cause notice and after affording opportunity to submit
objections on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, passed final order imposing
the punishment of postponement of next increment for two years without
cumulative effect. The Appeal preferred by the respondent was rejected by
the Appellate Authority. Thus, the respondent preferred the writ petition.
The learned Single Judge made a finding in the order impugned that
admittedly on 14.02.2005, the writ petitioner/respondent was given
permission to take rest. Even if allegations were made that he went out of the
jurisdiction of Police Station, materials on record reveal that he went out for
taking treatment at Government Hospital. Since his health was not well, he
had applied for medical leave. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had
gone out only to take treatment. Such a factual finding by the Writ Court in a
disciplinary proceedings for the purpose of setting aside the permission is
beyond the scope of the powers of judicial review.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The High Court while exercising the powers of judicial review in
punishment cases must ensure that the Rules of natural justice must be
followed or not. The punishment imposed is in proportionate with the gravity
of the proved charges or the Rules governing the disciplinary proceedings are
followed. Mere factual recording by the learned Single Judge to set aside the
order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by
the Appellate Authority would be insufficient and beyond the scope of
powers of judicial review.
4. In the present case, 4 charges were framed against the respondent.
Charge nos.(1) and (2) alone are held proved and charge nos.(3) and (4) are
held not proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and
imposed the minor penalty of postponement of increment for 2 years without
cumulative effect on the proved charges i.e., (1) and (2). The Writ Court
found that the procedures as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal
Rules were followed. However, set aside the punishment by reappreciating
the material evidences placed before the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate
Authority. The High court is not expected to sit as Disciplinary Authority or
the Appellate Authority for reappreciating the facts, which were adjudicated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. Further,
there is no material to distinguish the facts, which were already adjudicated
in the enquiry proceedings. That being the factum, we are inclined to
interfere with the order impugned.
5. Accordingly, the Writ order impugned dated 21.01.2020 passed in
WP.No.23801 of 2010 is set aside. The Writ Appeal stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.]
10.06.2024
kmi
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kmi
10.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
