Madras High Court
S.Kannan vs The Director General Of Police on 28 October, 2024
W.P.No. 10376 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.10376 of 2020
S.Kannan ....Petitioner
Vs
1. The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Tamil Nadu,
Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range, Madurai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar
....Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records connected with
proceedings issued in Tha.Pa.No.03/2017 u/r 3(b) dated 29.05.2017 passed
by the 3rd respondent and C.No.A4/7969/AP/2017 R.O.No.86/2018 dated
20.02.2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent and Rc.No.001168/AP.2(3)/2019
dated 17.03.2019 passed by the 1st Respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi
For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
Page 1 of 12
W.P.No. 10376 of 2020
ORDER
The impugned Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of
the Disciplinary Authority dated 20.02.2018 and the Appellate Authority
dated 17.03.2019.
2.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently submits
that the petitioner joined in the Police Service in the year 2009 as Police
Constable, and that he was posed as Driver for patrol vehicle bearing
Reg.No.TN67 G 0337 in the Armed Reserves. While so, a charge was
framed against him based upon the report of the Inspector of Police,
Technical Wing, that he caused loss to the sum of Rs.6,900/- by
manipulating records.
2.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
there is no misappropriation or any other falsification of records and only
based upon the Technical Wing Inspector's Report, the alleged loss has
been assessed and compensated by the petitioner. Therefore, there are no
ground to proceed against the petitioner, but in the contrasts, petitioner
was awarded with the punishment of withholding the increment with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
cumulative effect, which shocks the conscience of the Court. He would
further contend that, since the petitioner being a young police personnel,
such punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges and
that, such harsh punishment will have a cascading effect in his future
career. Hence, he prayed for interference of this Court.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate would contend that the
respondent has followed all due procedures, and only based upon the
materials available on record, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges
were proved against the petitioner. He would further contend that, it was
not a mere loss to the Government money and such loss has been effected
by the petitioner by way of fraud and therefore, order of punishment is
proportionate to the gravity of the proved charge. Hence contend that,
there are no ground to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority
and the Appellate Authority.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
5. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the alleged loss to the Government has been paid by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
petitioner, and that the loss was calculated based upon the meter reading
and that there are no proof for misappropriation. Before, we delve into
merits of the above submissions, it is appropriate to deal the legal principle
regarding the power of Judicial Review.
6. In B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC
749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows. The relevant
paragraphs are paragraphs 12 & 18 and the same read as follows:-
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review
of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial
review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public
servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the
inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural
justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are
based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to
hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a
finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on
some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of
proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary
proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and
conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is
entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as
appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at
its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal
may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against
the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the
mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by
the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the
conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would
have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the
conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it
appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. ..............
14. ...............
15. ...............
16. ................
17. ................
18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the
disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being
fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the
evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with
the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view
the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High
Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review,
cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and
impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the
conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately
mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the
litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
7. In Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai
Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that if the decision is against the natural justice, then the same
can be interfered. The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 25 & 29 and the
same read as follows:-
“25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the
Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making
process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The
Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the
delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the Rules of
natural justice or in violation of the statutory Rules prescribing the
mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the
disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or
finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached
or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from
patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a
writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial
review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or
reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
26. ......
27. .......
28. ........
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of
judicial review Under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution
would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the
departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or
perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or
where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with
objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there
is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the
departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”
8. Through the above judgments, the following principles are
emerging:-
(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But
such power is meant to ensure that the individual receives
fair treatment and to ensure the compliance of natural
justice.
(ii) The power of judicial review is not like a
appellate remedy to substitute its own finding, unless the
findings of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate
Authority is perverse and without evidence.
(iii) The High Court had no jurisdiction to review the
penalty, unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
(iv) Since because there is a possibility to arrive at
yet another finding, cannot be a reason to substitute the
finding of the disciplinary Authority.
(v) The judicial review is meant only to ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
conclusion.
(vi) While exercising the power of judicial review, so
long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion
arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be
sustained.
9. Let us consider the submission of the petitioner keeping in mind
with the above legal principles. It is the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that, if at all there was any loss on his part, that could
only because of his negligence and that, he has made good the loss. For
better appreciation and for ready reference, this Court deem it appropriate
to extract the charge framed against the petitioner.
mUg;g[f;nfhl;il beL";rhiy nuhe;;J gzpapy; TN 67 G 0337
Spacio vd;w thfdj;jpy; Xl;Lduhf gzpg[hpe;j nghJ. 01/10/2016 md;W
Kjy; 31/10/2016 tiu thfdk; 3521/91 fp/kP Xoajw;F gjpyhf 4840 fp/kP
Xoajhft[k;. TLjyhf 1320 fp/kP Jhuk; Xoajhf 120 ypll; h; vhpbghUSf;fhd
bjhif U:/6900-? Mjpfkhf bgw;W muR gzj;ij nkhro bra;J. murpw;F
,Hg;gPL Vw;gLj;jp. jkpH;ehL fhty; elj;ij tpjpfs; 1964 tpjp 24I kPwpa
fz;of;fj;jf;f bray;
10. As per the above charge, it is apparent that the petitioner though
drove the vehicle only for 3521.91 kms, he created records as if the vehicle
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
was driven for 4840 kms, and thereby, claimed a sum of Rs.6,900/- as fuel
charge by playing fraud. Therefore, the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the charge is only causing loss not
misappropriation cannot be accepted. According to the charge, beyond the
loss there is also a charge for fraud. To sustain the charge, the Enquiry
Officer relied upon three witnesses namely (1) Kandhasamy, (2) Manuvel
and (3) Ramanadhan and that through their evidence, the Enquiry Officer
found that there was manipulation of records by the petitioner. In this
regard, a report was also placed before the Enquiry Officer. Thus, there are
enough materials available against the petitioner.
11. It is settled principle of law that, unless the finding of the
Enquiry Officer is perverse, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence,
except making some threshold attempt to appreciate the evidence just to
find out whether the Enquiry Officer's finding is based upon some
evidence. By such threshold exercise, this Court finds no infirmity in the
order of the Enquiry Officer.
12. Nextly, while coming to the proportionality of the punishment,
unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, Writ Court cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
go into the same. Here, while looking at the charge, the charge is not only
cause the loss to the Government, but the loss has occurred because of the
fraud played by the petitioner, and that such charge of fraud has also been
proved against the petitioner. In such a circumstances, this Court could not
find any disproportionality in the punishment of withholding the increment
for three years with cumulative effect. As a concomitant, this Court find no
merits in this petition.
13.In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
28.10.2024
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
Sma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
To
1. The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Tamil Nadu,
Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range, Madurai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Sma
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
________
