Madras High Court
T.Handiran vs The Director General Of Police on 7 February, 2025
2025:MHC:596
W.P.(MD).No.5675 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.(MD).No.5675 of 2019
and
WMP.(MD).No.4 of 2021
T.Handiran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
Office of the Inspector General of Police,
Madurai.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
Office of the Deputy Inspector of General of Police
Dindigul.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni.
_________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.5675 of 2019
5.The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing (CCIW),
Office of Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
Rethinam Nagar,
Theni,
Theni District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records pursuant to the impugned order compulsory retirement order
passed by the 4th respondent dated 16.06.2014 in D.O.No.
529/2014/PR-33/F1/2013 and quash the same as illegal, against the
equity and natural justice and further direct the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner in service in accordance with the seniority.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.M.Raja
For Respondent : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Under assail is the order of compulsory retirement dated
16.06.2014, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Theni District.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner that
petitioner joined in the police service, as Second Grade Constable in the
year 1993, then he was promoted as First Grade Constable in the year
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
2005. Then he was upgraded to Head Constable in the year 2008. He was
transferred to CCIW wing, Theni, in the year 2003. He was transferred to
Theni from Madurai in the year 2011.
2 (i). The petitioner was put under suspension and a charge-memo
was issued for two persons in PR 33/2013 under Rule 3 (b) of the TNPSS
(D&A) Rules, 1955 and he was given memorandum of suspension for
two reasons, one is for his absence in joining the duty and other is for the
registration of FIR in Crime No.100/2011, under Section 506 (i). The
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Andipatti was appointed as Enquiry
Officer. The case registered in Cr.No.100/2011 was taken on file before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni in C.C.No.174 of 2015 and he was
acquitted vide judgment dated 16.11.2015, after full trial.
2 (ii). The petitioner has submitted his explanation before the
Enquiry Officer that the criminal case in CC.No.174 of 2015 as against
the petitioner was ended in acquittal. Hence, there is no charge against
him for giving compulsory retirement. The impugned compulsory
retirement order passed by the fourth respondent was reviewed by the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
first respondent in his proceedings in 63/A2/2014 dated 07.08.2014. The
fourth respondent had issued the impugned order of compulsory
retirement dated 16.06.2014 then the petitioner was asked to go for the
compulsory retirement by the fourth respondent. Otherwise, the fourth
respondent will threaten him that he would pass an order for dismissal.
Hence, without knowing of fact, the impugned order passed by the
respondent dated 16.06.2014 was reviewed by the fourth respondent. He
had received the pension only on 11.05.2017. The authorities had given
only with respect of his savings during his service. The 1st respondent
reviewed the, order of 4th respondent, without notice to him. Hence, it is
against the natural justice. Hence this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 16.06.2014 was
given to the petitioner without considering the review order passed by
the first respondent dated 07.08.2014. The fourth respondent has never
considered the case on merits and never considered the departmental
enquiry and had even never given opportunity for disposal of the review
petition. The fourth respondent had no locus-standi to pass an order and
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
the order impugned, compulsory retirement dated 16.06.2014. The 4th
respondent had never considered the case on merit and never considered
conclusion of the Criminal Case.
4. Per-contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was
relieved from ADGP, EOW Unit, on administrative ground on
19.02.2011 but he did not report in Theni District till 11.03.2011. He was
involved in a criminal case in Alinagaram PS.C.No.100/2011 under
Section 506 (I) of IPC. As the absence of 21 days did not accure and he
was placed under suspension for involvment of a criminal case on
11.03.2011. After giving sufficient opportunity to him to defend the
departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the
reasoned order, there is no violation in following the procedures laid
down in “Tamil Nadu Police Sub-Ordinate Service (Disciplinary and
Appeal) Rules 1955” hereinafter referred as (“TNPSS (D&A) Rules,
1955”).
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
5. It is seen from records that the fourth respondent has issued a
charge-memo to the petitioner on 28.03.2013 and the petitioner has
submitted his representation vide letter dated 26.08.2013 thereafter as per
the notification dated 27.08.2013, the departmental enquiry proceedings
has been commenced by appointing Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Andipatti is the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner after receiving his charge-
memo has submitted his written submissions dated 16.10.2013. The
Enquiry Officer after conducting the departmental proceedings after
giving sufficient opportunity to defend his case and finds that the charges
levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Thereafter, the petitioner had
submitted his further representation dated 07.12.2013 to the
Superintendent Of Police, Theni District.
6. After considering the same, the Superintendent Of Police, Theni
District passed an order dated 16.06.2014, imposing the punishment of
compulsory retirement from service and the order of the compulsory
retirement in PR No.33/2013 under Rule of TNPSS (D&A) Rules, 1955
dated 16.06.2014 was duly served to the petitioner.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the review order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range dated 07.08.2014 was not communicated to the
petitioner and the petitioner was also not aware of the review order
passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Therefore, the
petitioner was to constrained to file writ petition before this Hon'ble
Court in W.P.(MD).No.2789 of 2019, praying to consider the review
petition dated 17.12.2018 as early as possible with reference to the
issuance of the copy of the proceedings dated 07.08.2014.
8. It is seen from the type set of papers, vide memorandum dated
07.08.2014, Deputy Inspector General, Dindigul range has passed an
order, wherein it has been stated that the punishment of compulsory
retirement from service is reviewed and returned. This Court vide order
dated 12.02.2019, in WP(MD).No.2289 of 2019 observed that “the
information sought by the writ petitioner herein has been given. Hence,
nothing further survives for further adjudication in this writ petition and
stands closed.”
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
9. It is settled proposition, the acquittal of the accused in a criminal
case does not debar employer from proceeding in the exercise of
disciplinary jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's judgment
reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 304, The State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs.
Umesh, wherein it has been held 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 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 perversitty; and (vi)
the penalty is disproportionate to the proven
misconduct.”
10. The writ petitioner was participated in the department
proceedings. He was chosen to file the writ petition in WP(MD).No.
2789/2019, praying to consider the review petition dated 12.12.2018 to
expedite the same and that writ petition was closed on 12.12.2019. The
department enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement
from service on 16.06.2014, after lapse of more than four (4) years, the
writ petition has been initiated, to challenge the punishment. At this
juncture, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in [2012 (9) SCC 610] in the case of Vijaya Kumar Kaul Vs.
Union of India held as follows:-
“27. ...It becomes an obligation to take into
consideration the balance of justice in entertaining the
petition or declining it on the ground of delay and
laches. It is a matter of great significance that at one
point of time equity that existed in favour of one melts
into total insignificance and paves the path of
extinction with the passage of time.”
It is also pertinent to mention that neither has it
been pleaded nor is it apparent from the material on
record that the Respondent was uanble to approach
the court-of-law in time on account of any social or
financial disability. Had such been the case, he ought
to have availed free legal aid and should have
ventilated his grievances in a timely manner.”
11. It is brought to the notice of this Court, that the letter submitted
by the writ petitioner dated 04.05.2016, requested to disburse the
pensionary benefits. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, the
proceedings 05.04.2017 issued by the Principal Accountant General to
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
the writ petitioner, regarding the pensionary benefits, were extended the
writ petitioner. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same
is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
07.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
nst
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
Office of the Inspector General of Police,
Madurai.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
Office of the Deputy Inspector of General of Police
Dindigul.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Commercial Crime Investigation Wing (CCIW),
Office of Commercial Crime Investigation Wing,
Rethinam Nagar,
Theni,
Theni District.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
nst
and
Dated: 07.02.2025
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 01:27:53 pm )
