Madras High Court
The Director General Of Police vs Raadhu Raji (Formerly R.D.Rajathi) on 18 February, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.No. 583 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No. 583 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No. 4083 of 2024
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai - 04.03.2024
2.The Additional Director General of Police,
Training, Ashok Nagar,
Chennai.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Training,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 83. ... Appellants
Vs.
Raadhu Raji (Formerly R.D.Rajathi) ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 14.12.2022 made in W.P.No.7370 of 2017.
For Appellants : Mr.John J.Raja Singh
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sivakumar
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 583 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The Department is on appeal, aggrieved by the order of the writ court,
setting aside the punishment imposed on the respondent for certain
misconduct.
2. The respondent, who was working as a Women Sub-Inspector of
Police was charged with certain delinquencies and after issuance of a charge
memo, a departmental enquiry was conducted against her. The charges were
of two counts and sum and substance of the same are as follows:-
"Count:-1: Reprehensible conduct in having illegal contact
with Tr.P.Shanmuga Sundaram, Sub Inspr of Police, Kangayam
P.S. (Now under suspension) and creating a bad name to the
Police department and set a bad example being a young Sub
Inspector before other police personnel of police disciplinary
force.
Count -2: Highly reprehensible conduct in having Harassed,
assaulting Tmt.Sasikala, wife of Tr.P.Shanmuga Sundaram, Sub
Inspr of Police, Kangayam P.S. (Now under suspension)
demanding cash Rs.5,00,000/-, a car as dowry. 3 months after
09.09.2002 at O.M. Quarters, Bhavanisagar."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer returned a finding that the
Charge No.1 has been proved and the Charge No.2 was held to be not
proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry
Officer and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment with
cumulative effect for a period of two years. Aggrieved, the respondent
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority namely, the Additional
Director General of Police. The Appellate Authority, by its order dated
15.07.2011, sustained the findings. It, however, reduced the punishment to
postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect. A
mercy petition filed by the respondent was reject, forcing her to approach
this Court.
4. The learned single Judge has set aside the punishment on the
ground that the Enquiry Officer had chosen to rely upon the statements
made by witnesses at the preliminary enquiry, ignoring to contradictions in
the evidence of the witnesses during the disciplinary proceedings. The
learned single Judge also referred to various pronouncements of this Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the veracity of the statements
made during the preliminary enquiry. It was also pointed out that many of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the witnesses had turned hostile during the disciplinary proceedings. On the
above findings, the learned single Judge set aside the order of punishment
and also directed the appellants to notionally promote the respondent to the
post of Inspector with effect from the year 2012, together with all service
and monetary benefits. Aggrieved, the Department has come up with this
appeal.
5.We have heard Mr.John S.Raja Singh, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Sivakumar,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. Mr.John S.Raja Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would vehemently contend that the learned single Judge was not right in
concluding that the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the statement of
witnesses made during the preliminary enquiry to reach the conclusion of
guilt. He would point out that the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 namely, the
wife of the other delinquent, Sub-Inspector, Mr.Shanmugasundaram and his
father-in-law remain unchallenged and the Enquiry Officer had accepted the
said evidence. The fact that P.W.3 had turned hostile and the Enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Officer had made certain observations about her conduct will not affect the
conclusions of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, according to the learned
counsel for the appellants, the Writ Court was not right in concluding that
the Enquiry Officer had taken into account the statements made during the
preliminary enquiry and has brushed aside the evidence that was placed
before the disciplinary proceedings.
7. Contending contra, Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that Rule 4A of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1955 mandates a joint enquiry where, more than one
member of service is involved has been validated. He would also point out
that the other Officer namely, Mr.P.Shanmugasundaram, Sub-Inspector of
Police, Kangeyam, who was alleged to be involved in a relationship outside
marriage with the respondent was also charged with the same charge and in
the enquiry, it was concluded that the said charge, which was Charge No.6
has not been proved. However, in the disciplinary enquiry held as against
the respondent, the very same charge has been held to be proved. This
according to the learned counsel would vitiate the entire disciplinary
proceedings. Rule 4A of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline and Appeal)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rules, 1984 reads as follows:-
"Rules 4A. In any case, where more than one member of
the service are involved, the authority competent to institute
disciplinary proceedings and impose any of the penalties
specified in rule 2 shall be the authority in respect of the
member who holds the highest post and the disciplinary
proceedings against all of them shall be taken together.
Provided that in the case where a member of the service
and a member of other service are jointly involved or whose
cases are inter connected, the Government shall be the
authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the member of the service and impose any of the
penalties specified in rule 2 and in such cases the
administrative department of Secretariat in respect of the
member who holds the highest post will initiate such
disciplinary proceedings and issue final orders after complying
with the entire procedure laid down in these rules."
8. The above said rule mandates that when two members of service
are involved, the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken together. This rule
has been inserted with an object to prevent different conclusions on the
same charge against two different members of the service. Rule 4A was not
complied with in the instant case, leading to two different conclusions on
the same charge against the two members of the service. This, in our
opinion, has resulted in one Officer, who has been charged with a same
charge being let off and another person being punished. This cannot be
permitted.
9.The charge itself is that the respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mr.P.Shanmugasundaram, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kangeyam had a
relationship outside the marriage, which resulted in bringing bad name to
the police force. The said charge against the Sub-Inspector,
Mr.P.Shanmugasundaram has been held to be not proved. Therefore, the
very same charge against the petitioner cannot be held to be proved by
another Enquiry Officer.
10. We therefore, sustain the order of the Writ Court on the short
ground that the failure to adhere to Rule 4A had resulted in conflicting
findings and the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of such
procedural violation. We therefore, confirm the order of the Writ Court,
though for different reasons. This Writ Appeal therefore, fails and it is
accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
18.02.2025
kkn
Index: No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation :No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai - 04.03.2024
2.The Additional Director General of Police,
Training, Ashok Nagar,
Chennai.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Training,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 83.
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
KKN
and
18.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
