Madras High Court
S.Sureshbabu vs The Inspector General Of Police on 9 April, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.6712 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.(MD)No.6712 of 2019
S.Sureshbabu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Police,
I/C Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Armed Police, Trichy.
2.The Commandant,
TSP VI Battalion, Madurai.
3.The Director General of Police,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-600 004. ... Respondents
(R3 is impleaded vide Court order dated 12.03.2025 in WMP.(MD)No.
4773 of 2025 in W.P.(MD)No.6712 of 2019.)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to the proceedings of the second respondent made in PR.No.54
of 2016 dated 03.11.2017 and consequential appeal order passed by the
first respondent made in C.No.A2/Appeal-36/2018 dated 04.12.2018 and
the consequential order passed by the third respondent in R.C.No.
436987/AP.IV(2)/2021 dated 27.04.2012 and quash the same and direct
the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service within the period
that may be stipulated by this Court.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.6712 of 2019
(Prayer amended vide Court order dated 12.03.2025 in WMP.(MD)No.
4775 of 2025 in WP.(MD)No.6712 of 2019)
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan,
for M/s.M.Maria Vinolia
For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman,
Government Advocate.
ORDER
Under assail is the order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the
Commandant, TSP VI Battalion, Madurai and the order dated 04.12.2018
passed by the Inspector General of Police and consequential order dated
27.04.2012 passed by the Director General of Police imposing
punishment of removal from service.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in Tamil
Nadu Special Police Youth Brigadier in Tamil Nadu Police Department
on 13.02.2014. He worked in Paravakottai Police Station, Thiruvarur
District. He was promoted as Constable II Grade and underwent training
at Thanjore, Police Recruitment School on 25.02.2016. At the time of
training, his father met with an accident and he wanted to she his father.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
But the second respondent has not granted leave and instructed him to
continue the training. Hence, he left the training camp without any
instruction or any previous sanction. Since he left the camp without any
instruction, he got scared and mentally depressed. He was admitted in
J.M.H Clininc A centre for Mental Health Care for health care from
26.03.2016 to 26.03.2017. The second respondent issued charge memo
dated 19.07.2017. As he left the training camp without any permission
or instruction and absent for more than 21 days, the second respondent
vide order dated 21.04.2016 has passed an order of Vitoduthal. As per
order, he has to present before the second respondent within 60 days.
But without knowing these details, the petitioner underwent medication
and did not appear before the second respondent. The second respondent
as per Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, initiated disciplinary action and
charge memo was issued on 19.07.2016. He had attended oral enquiry
on 21.09.2017, 25.09.2017, 02.10.2017 and 09.10.2017 and also made
his submissions. After the enquiry, the second respondent passed an
order of removal from service vide his order dated 07.11.2017. He sent
representation to the first respondent. Thereafter, he preferred a writ
petition in W.P.(MD)No.12303 of 2018 and this Court by its order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
11.06.2018 directed the respondents to consider the appeal petition
submitted by the petitioner. He has submitted appeal petition on
23.10.2018 as per order of this Court before the first respondent. The
appeal also rejected without proper enquiry. Hence, this petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner left the training camp is not willful nor wanton, but
only due to act of the superiors who denied leave for the petitioner to
look after his father, who met with a grave accident is arbitrary and
illegal. He would submit that rejection of appeal for the same reason
previously expressed for the earlier suo motu appeal is highly arbitrary
and illegal. To strengthen his contention, he has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 2458
in a case of Jagdish Singh Vs Punjab Engineering College & Others to
show that the proportionality of punishment and logical reasoning
emanating from legal findings. He would submit that the petitioner left
the training camp without any previous sanction only in order to see his
father to assist him for treatment and he had good track record from the
date of joining of service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
4.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is not
proportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled and proved against
the petitioner. He would submit that he was absented for more than 21
days due to sudden ill-health of his father and hence, he prayed for lessor
punishment.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also would
submit that since he left the camp without any instructions, he got scared
and mentally depressed, while thinking about his job and his future.
Therefore, he was admitted in J.M.H.Clinic A Centre for Mental Health
Care and underwent medication from 26.03.2016 to 26.03.2017.
Therefore, within the prescribed time, he could not preferred an appeal or
submit his explanation.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would submit that the petitioner has not requested any leave
or permission to see his father while on training and his allegation of
denial of leave is on after thought. He has not mentioned about the
denial of the leave requisition in his explanation dated 09.10.2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
submitted before the second respondent. He would submit that the
petitioner has not participated in the disciplinary proceedings and
sufficient opportunity were given to him to defend his case. He would
submit that leaving training camp without getting prior permission from
higher officials is a serious misconduct and such charge being proved
against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has chosen to imposing
major punishment of removal from service. He would submit that the
first respondent has passed a speaking order and rejected the appeal in
accordance with law. There is no reason to interfere with the order
impugned.
7.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the records.
8.It is seen from the typed-set of papers that initially the petitioner
was worked as Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigadier in Tamil
Nadu Police Department. Vide order dated 12.02.2026, he was
appointed as Constable Grade II in Tamil Nadu Special Police wherein it
has been stated that the petitioner has to go six months training and he
has to complete the probation period with the continuing period of two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
years and report undergone training at Temporary Police Recruit School,
Thanjavur. During the course of training period, the petitioner has
absented for training beyond 21 days from 14.03.2016 and hence, he
was treated as deserter, as per the Police Standing Order No.95(Volume-
I) vide Battalion Order dated 21.04.2016 by the second respondent. The
petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent within 60
days from the date of desertion to consider him to take back for training.
The same was acknowledged by the petitioner on 07.05.2016. The
petitioner has failed to appear before the second respondent, even after a
lapse of 60 days. Hence, the desertion was confirmed vide Battalian
order dated 21.06.2016 and the same was acknowledged to the petitioner
on 02.07.2016.
9.Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with charge under Rule
3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules 1955 vide charge memo dated 26.09.2016. On
27.06.2017, the petitioner submitted representation to the Additional
Director General of Police. On 31.07.2017, the petitioner submitted his
explanation. On 01.09.2017, the second respondent appointed an
enquiry officer to conduct disciplinary enquiry. On 10.10.2017, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
enquiry officer submitted a report stating that charges levelled against the
petitioner stands proved. On 03.11.2017, the second respondent imposed
punishment of removal from service. The petitioner filed a writ petition
in W.P.(MD)No.12303 of 2018 challenging the punishment imposed by
the second respondent. Vide order dated 11.06.2018, the said writ
petition was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an
appeal. On 24.10.2018 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Inspector
General of Police, ie., first respondent. On 04.12.2018, the first
respondent rejected the appeal. Thereafter, the present writ petition filed
to challenge the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the first respondent.
On 27.04.2022 the Director General of Police rejected the mercy petition
submitted by the writ petitioner on 25.11.2021. Thereafter, amendment
petition filed to amend the prayer and thereby, the order of punishment
dated 03.11.2017 passed by the second respondent, dismissal of appeal
by the first respondent dated 04.12.2018 and consequential rejection of
mercy petition by the Director General of Police dated 27.04.2022 are
challenged in this writ petition.
10.It is pertinent to mention that the Court can interfere with the
decision of the disciplinary authority only when the Court is satisfied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly
disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled and proved against
the delinquent employee and not otherwise. It is seen from the records
that the petitioner was dealt with charge under Rule 3B for having
deserted the training, he was imposed with punishment of removal from
service by the second respondent vide order dated 03.11.2017 and the
same was served on the petitioner on 26.11.207. As per the Tamil Nadu
Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, appeal
petition should be submitted before the appellate authority, within one
month from the date of receipt of the order. But the petitioner, has not
submitted any appeal, within the time limit. Since no appeal has been
preferred by the petitioner, the second respondent sent a file for suo motu
review. The first respondent considered the same and passed an order
that the punishment of removal from service is appropriate, vide order
dated 13.03.2018. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has not
requested any leave or permission to see his father while on training and
he has not mentioned about the denial of leave request by the second
respondent in his explanation dated 09.10.2017 and subsequent
representations also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
11.The petitioner has submitted mercy petition dated 25.11.2021
to the third respondent requesting to cancel the punishment and reinstate
the petitioner in the post of Grade II Police Constable. The said mercy
petition has been rejected vide order dated 27.04.2022.
12.The act of the petitioner leaving training camp without getting
prior permission from higher officials is a misconduct. He has not
requested leave or permission to see his father. The Disciplinary
Authority found that lethargic attitude is not accepted from the person,
who is under training in a discipline force and punishment impose on the
petitioner was in proportionate to the delinquency. An ample
opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing final orders.
13.At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in a judgment reported in Aironline 2020 SC
795 in a case of State Of Rajasthan vs Heem Singh wherein it has been
held that “the verdict of the criminal trial did not conclude the
disciplinary enquiry. The disciplinary enquiry was not governed by proof
beyond reasonable doubt or by the rules of evidence which governed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
criminal trial”. It is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in a case of Union of India & Ors Vs.
P.Gunasekaran wherein laid down preponderance of probabilities for
exercising of judicial review. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:-
12.Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an
appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-
appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer.
The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary
authority and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the
High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first
appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not
venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High
Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced
by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could
ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit
the admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13.Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court shall not:
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the
same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to
be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.
14.It is also refer the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
2022 Livelaw (SC) 304 in a case of State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
Umesh wherein it has been stated as follows:-
17.In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does
not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the
disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the
evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct
has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry.
The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its
review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice
have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is
based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing
the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed;
and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority
suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is
disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
15.By keeping in mind on the above tests, in the instant case on
hand, none of the above tests for attracting to interference of order
impugned. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles
of natural justice. The findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary
authority are substantiate with reference to the evidence which was
adduced during the enquiry. It is settled law that the acquittal by a
criminal Court does not preclude a departmental enquiry against the
delinquent officer. The object of a Departmental enquiry is to find out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules
for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in
service. It is seen from the records that an enquiry was conducted in
adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
The charges are specific, definite and giving details of the incident,
which formed the basis of charges. The punishment imposed is
proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. There is no reason to
direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to re-consider
the penalty imposed. There is no merits in this writ petition and the same
is liable to be dismissed.
16.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
NCC : Yes / No 09.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
gns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
To
1.The Inspector General of Police,
I/C Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Armed Police, Trichy.
2.The Commandant,
TSP VI Battalion, Madurai.
3.The Director General of Police,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gns
09.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/05/2025 05:49:35 pm )
