Madras High Court
T.Robert vs The Director on 10 February, 2025
2025:MHC:736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P No.33704 of 2018
and
WMP.No.39112 of 2018
T.Robert,
No.156, Melpatti Ponnappa
Mudaliar street,
Vyasarpadi, Chennai-600 039. ..... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department,
Alandur, Chennai-600 016.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department,
Central Division Alandur,
Chennai-600 0 16. .... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a WRIT OF CERTIRARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records
pertaining to the dismissal order Ku.Ku.No.3/2001 dated 13.08.2002 of 2nd
respondent, quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner with back wages, continuity of service and with all
attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.T.Varadarajulu
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:00 pm )
For Respondents : Mr.T.Cheziyan, AGP
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal
order dated 13.08.2002 in Ku.Ku.No.3/2001 passed by the 2nd respondent and
consequently, to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back wages
and continuity of services and other attendant benefits.
2. Heard Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.T.Cheziyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents and
perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner was appointed as an office assistant in the office of the 1st
respondent. On a complaint given by one Shankar against the petitioner, an FIR
was registered in Crime No.623 of 2001, and he was arrested on 11.07.2001 and
remanded. After the charge sheet was filed before the Vth Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, a case was taken on file in
CC.No.1273/2002 under Section 419, 468, and 471 of the IPC, after the
petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. In view of the FIR having been
registered against him and he got arrested, he was issued with a charge memo,
and departmental proceedings were initiated. At the end of the departmental
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:00 pm )
enquiry, the charges against the petitioner were proved, and thereafter, he was
imposed with a punishment of dismissal on 13.8.2002.
4. Now the petitioner claims that he has been acquitted in the criminal case
as the complainant who had given the complaint himself has turned hostile. It is
needless to state that the standard of proof required in the departmental
proceedings and the criminal trial are not the same. While the charges against a
delinquent are proved with a preponderance of probabilities in the departmental
proceedings, the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is beyond
reasonable doubt. As the witnesses have turned hostile in the departmental
proceedings, he was given the benefit of doubt, and that ended in his acquittal.
The above acquittal cannot be called an honorable acquittal.
5. Further, the petitioner did not file any appropriate proceedings before
any appropriate forum to stop the departmental proceedings stating that identical
facts and evidence are involved in both the departmental proceedings and the
criminal trial. In the departmental enquiry, the charges framed against the
petitioner were proved. The charges were grave that the petitioner had forged the
I.D. card at the department by showing himself as a constable No.1008 and
forged the signature of the officer in the I.D. card. He had threatened the private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:00 pm )
persons, stating that police complaints had been received against them and had
fraudulently swindled huge sum. As the materials available in the departmental
enquiry, is sufficient enough to prove that he had created I.D. cards as though
they were issued by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption by forging
the signature of its officer, and the said conduct of the petitioner was damaging
the image of the sensitive office of the police department and the 1st respondent
had thought it fit to impose a capital punishment of removal from service.
6. The petitioner who had quietly accepted the order of dismissal from the
year 2002 has filed this writ petition by taking advantage of the judgement of
acquittal. Even the judgment in the criminal case has been passed as early as on
01.10.2013, as the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. After five long
years from the judgement of the criminal Court, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition just to check his luck as an afterthought.
7. As I find no merits in the grounds raised by the petitioner and the
judgment of the acquittal in the criminal case is not honourable acquittal but due
to the benefit of doubt, and that too because the witnesses turned hostile, I don’t
find any reason to set aside the impugned dismissal order dated 13.08.2002
passed by the 2nd respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:00 pm )
In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
10.02.2025
jrs
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non- Speaking
Neutral: Yes/No
To
1. The Director,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department,
Alandur, Chennai-600 016.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department,
Central Division Alandur,
Chennai-600 0 16.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:00 pm )
R.N.MANJULA, J.
jrs
and
10.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:00 pm )
