Madras High Court
G.Chakkaravarthy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 January, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).No.20041 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on :06.12.2024
Pronounced on : 21.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.20041 of 2024
and WMP(MD).Nos.16994 and 16995 of 2024
G.Chakkaravarthy ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2.The Director General of Police
Office of the Director General of Police
Tamil Nadu
Chennai 600 004
3.The Additional Director General of Police
Office of the Director General of Police
Law & Order
Chennai – 4
4.The Inspector General of Police /Commissioner of Police
Tirunelveli City
Tirunelveli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/25
W.P(MD).No.20041 of 2024
5.The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Law & Order
Tirunelveli City
Tirunelveli ....Respondents
Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned
order passed by the first respondent vide his proceedings in G.O(2D).No.254,
Home (Police-2) Department dated 08.08.2024 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.AJmalkhan
Senior Counsel
M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by an Assistant Commissioner
of Police challenging the order of punishment imposed upon him by the first
respondent vide his proceedings dated 08.08.2024 wherein the petitioner has
been imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years
with cumulative effect.
(A).Facts leading to the filing of this present writ petition are as
follows:
2.The petitioner while he was working as an Assistant Commissioner
of Police, Control Room, Madurai City was issued with a charge memo under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955
on 22.10.2021 for the alleged delinquencies committed by him while he was
working as an Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order)
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City.
3.The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the charge memo on
29.08.2022. Pending enquiry, the petitioner has given a request on
19.09.2022 to examine some of the police officials and to furnish the copies
of call detail records from his mobile phone. However, no orders have been
passed on the above said request.
4.The petitioner had challenged the charge memo in PR.No.29 of 2021
in WP.(MD).No.13459 of 2022 before this Court along with two other charge
memos in different writ petitions. All the three writ petitions were heard
together and were dismissed by a common order on 26.09.2023 holding that
the charge memo cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does
not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent. Thereafter, the petitioner has
participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report was submitted and the
petitioner has submitted his further explanation on 01.12.2023. The petitioner
was called upon to furnish his further representation on 24.04.2024. The
petitioner has submitted his further explanation on 10.06.2024. Final orders
were passed under the impugned Government Order dated 08.08.2024
imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cumulative effect. The said order is under challenge in the present writ
petition.
(B).Contentions of the learned counsels appearing on either side
are as follows:
5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had
contended that while the petitioner was working as an Assistant
Commissioner of Police at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District, he received a
phone call from a person claiming to be the Inspector General of Police,
Southern Region and he had informed that one Mr.M.Sheik Meeran would
approach him with a complaint and he should proceed with the complaint on
receipt thereof. After receiving the complaint from the said M.Sheik Meeran
on 30.12.2018, he found that one Rathinakumar had received 25 pounds of
jewels from the complainant and he has not chosen to return the same. When
the said Rathinakumar was enquired about it, he had threatened the M.Sheik
Meeran with dire consequences. The occurrence is said to have taken place
in Tirunelveli New Bus Stand.
6.It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the writ petitioner that after preliminary enquiry, the said Rathinakumar was
brought to the office on 03.01.2019 and after enquiry, it was found that such
an allegation was absolutely false with a cooked up story. It was further found
that the said Rathinakumar had brought two electronic speakers from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Malaysia which contained 3 kg. of gold ornaments and without handing over
the same to the concerned person, he had retained it with himself. It is further
alleged by the petitioner that all these facts were known to one Additional
Director General of Police and he had requested him to find out the jewels on
the basis of the complaint. The petitioner is said to have entertained doubt
about the genuineness of the statement of Rathinakumar and M.Sheik
Meeran and both of them were directed to appear for further enquiry in his
office on 05.01.2019.
7.It is further alleged that on 05.01.2019, the petitioner is said to have
received a call from the Additional Director General of Police to verify
whether he had recovered the jewels from Rathinakumar, but he had informed
that it relates to smuggling of gold and therefore, he is not in a position to
respond to the complaint and he had disconnected the phone call. Thereafter,
the petitioner was immediately transferred to Chief Office Control Room,
Chennai.
8.The petitioner herein had filed WP.(MD).No.1028 of 2019
challenging the transfer order. The said writ petition was dismissed by this
Court on 01.02.2019. The petitioner had challenged the said order in
WA.(MD).No.219 of 2019. This Court by an order dated 22.01.2020 had
disposed of the said writ appeal with a direction of the State Government to
conduct an enquiry into the incident that culminated in punitive transfer of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the writ petitioner by an independent agency namely CBCID. This Court has
also issued a direction to the authority to initiate action as against the officials
who were found involved in abetting, aiding and protecting the smugglers or
criminals with specific reference to the incident which led to the transfer of
the appellant. The order of transfer was quashed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench. However, the authorities were directed to place the writ petitioner in
some other district. A further direction was issued to the Government to
nominate the officer of CBCID to conduct a fair and transparent enquiry.
9.The petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 22.10.2021 under
Rule 17(b) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955
wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed four delinquencies. The
first delinquency relates to the allegation of proceeding in a private car into
another District namely Tuticorin, beyond his jurisdiction without getting
prior permission to leave the Headquarters from his superior. It is further
alleged that he had arrested Rathinakumar at mid-night and brought to the
office of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai and he came to
know that he had concealed the suit-case with smuggled properties in a gunny
bag and involved malicious action thereby violating the duties and
responsibilities as laid down in the Police Standing Orders.
10.As per second delinquency, it is alleged that the petitioner has taken
the said Rathinakumar to a private house near KTC Nagar in Palayamkottai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and illegally detained him for the sake of conducting enquiry into the petition
received and he had violated the Police Standing Orders. As per third
delinquency, the petitioner is said to have used a Government vehicle and a
private car for a malicious purpose of carrying smuggled properties without
any permission from the superior officer for his personal furtherance and after
that he had refused to sign the call log book for the trip to Periyathalai Village
at Tuticorin with an intention to hide his suspicious activities. As per the
fourth delinquency, the petitioner is said to have handcuffed the said
Rathinakumar, but allowed him to escape from the custody with handcuff
from the sea-shore, Periyathalai on 03.01.2019 at about 7.15 p.m resulting in
failure to produce the accused before the competent Court without 24 hours
and he failed to give complaint for the above said incident to the nearest
police station thereby violating Section 57 of Cr.P.C.
11.According to learned Senior Counsel, only under the instructions of
the higher officials, the officials had visited Periyathalai and had secured the
said Rathinakumar for further enquiry. After enquiry, it was found that the
allegation of the said Sheik Meeran with regard to handing over of jewels and
not returning of the jewels is false and therefore, the said Rathinakumar was
let off from the Assistant Commissioner of Police office, Palayamkottai.
Therefore, the allegation that without obtaining any prior permission from the
higher official, the petitioner had exceeded his jurisdiction and entered into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
nearby District is completely false.
12.The learned senior counsel had further contended that the order of
the Division Bench in WA(MD).No.219 of 2019 dated 21.01.2020 would
reveal that the said incident that has taken place involving various police
officials and the Court had directed the Government to conduct an enquiry by
an officer of CBCID. The petitioner has been targeted only because of the
fact that he had highlighted illegal activities of certain individuals who were
connected with the police officials.
13.The learned senior counsel had further contended that as far as the
second count of charges relating to illegal detention and custody of
Rathinakumar is concerned, neither the said Rathinakumar nor is family
members have made any complaint to the police authority or filed any
proceedings before the Court alleging that the said Rathinakumar was
illegally detained by the police official in a private house. In such
circumstances, the said allegation is without any basis. As far as the third
charge relating to refusing to sign the vehicle log book for taking the vehicle
to Periyathalai Village is concerned, the driver of the said vehicle who was
examined as PW6 has categorically deposed that the delinquent had never
refused to sign in the log book.
14.The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the fourth
count of charges relating to allowing the said Rathnakumar to escape from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the custody with handcuff is concerned, the said Rathinakumar was let off
with a preliminary enquiry. No F.I.R was registered as against the said
Rathinakumar warranting his production before the Court of law within a
period of 24 hours. There is no complaint that any handcuff is missing either
from Assistant Commissioner of Police office or from any one of the police
stations. When the said Rathinakumar was neither arrested nor handcuffed,
the fourth charge alleging that the petitioner had allowed the said
Rathinakumar to escape from the custody with handcuff is only an
imagination.
15.The learned senior counsel extensively relied upon the deposition of
PW5, PW6, PW9, PW11 and PW14 and contended that none of the witnesses
on the department side were able to prove the allegation as against the writ
petitioner. The learned senior counsel relying upon the enquiry report had
contended that the cross examination of the witnesses have been done by the
enquiry officer himself and therefore he has moved away from his
impartiality and had become the Presenting Officer on behalf of the
department. In such circumstances, the report of the enquiry officer is vitiated
and the same is liable to be set aside.
16.The learned senior counsel had further contended that when the
enquiry report is based upon surmises and conjectures and there is no oral or
documentary evidence to establish the allegation, this Court is entitled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
interfere in the order of punishment under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The learned senior counsel had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2022) 13 SCC 329 (United Bank of India Vs.
Biswanath Bhattacharjee) dated 31.01.2022 and the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi Vs.Punjab
National Bank and others) and the judgement reported in (1964) 4 SCR
718 (Union of India Vs.H.C.Goel) and contended that when the finding in a
departmental enquiry are based upon presumption and assumption and when
there is no legally acceptable evidence whatsoever, the Court can interfere,
exercising its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
17.The learned Senior Counsel had also relied upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 (State of Uttar
Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha) to impress upon the Court that
the enquiry officer cannot cross examine the witness and he has to maintain
impartiality in conducting departmental proceedings. The learned senior
counsel has further contended that as per direction of the Hon'ble Division
Bench in WA.(MD).No.219 of 2019, so far the enquiry has not been initiated
by the Government as against the officials.This would only strengthen the
case of the writ petitioner to the effect that the petitioner had let off the
accused after finding that the allegation made in the complaint was found to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be false and the allegation relates to smuggling of gold.
18.The learned senior counsel had further contended that this Court in
WP(MD).No.13459 of 2022 dated 26.09.2023 while dismissing the writ
petition, filed against the charge memo, had directed the authority to
complete the enquiry within two months from the date of the receipt of a copy
of the order. However, the enquiry was completed and final order of
punishment was imposed only on 08.08.2024, much later than the time limit
fixed by the High Court. The learned senior counsel had relied upon the
judgement of the Division Bench reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 625 (The State of
Tamil Nadu and another Vs. T.Ranganathan) and contended that when the
enquiry was not completed within the time limit fixed by the Court and had
exceeded the time limit, the entire enquiry proceedings have to be considered
to be vitiated and the punishment imposed has to be set aside. Hence, he
prayed for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the order of punishment.
19.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents herein relying upon Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit filed
by the petitioner had contended that the writ petitioner in his writ affidavit
has admitted that he had gone into the jurisdiction of Tuticorin police
authority and had secured the said Rathinakumar. He had further relied upon
the cross examination of PW1 especially question Nos. 51 and 52 and
contended that the private vehicle has been used to reach Periyathalai in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tuticorin District. He had further contended that PW12 also supports the case
of the department with regard to Charge No.1. The learned Additional
Government Pleader had relied upon the evidence of PW11 who is the house
owner and contended that the said Rathinakumar has been illegally detained
in a private house for conducting some enquiry and therefore, Charge No.2
also stood proved.
20.As far as the third charge relating to using of a Government vehicle
and a private Innova for malicious purpose of smuggled properties are
concerned, those charges are proved by deposition of PW3 and PW6 which
has not been properly controverted by the writ petitioner through his cross
examination. The learned Additional Government Pleader had further
contended that as far as Charge No.4 is concerned, the petitioner is expected
to handover the accused person to the Court within 24 hours from the time of
arrest. However, in the present case, the accused person namely
Rathinakumar had been allowed to escape with handcuff. The petitioner is
guilty of not only allowing the accused person to escape, but also the
misconduct of losing the handcuff. The handcuff being lost is in violation of
the Police Standing Orders. Therefore, Charge No.4 also stands proved.
Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition and to sustain the order of
punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
(C)Discussion:
22.The first count of charge relates to the allegation that the petitioner
has proceeded in a private vehicle to Periyathalai in Tuticorin District which
is beyond his jurisdiction without obtaining prior permission from the higher
officials in order to secure one Rathinakumar. One Annaraja who was
working as an officer at Assistant Commissioner Office, Palayamkottai at the
relevant point of time has been examined as PW5. In his chief examination,
he has deposed that he came to know that Additional Director General of
Police and Inspector General of Police had spoken to the delinquent to carry
out the operation. He had further deposed in his chief examination that the
delinquent officer had informed the Deputy Inspector General of Police about
moving to Periyathalai for his operation. When he was cross examined, he
stated that due to pressure from his higher officials, he had lodged a
complaint as against the delinquent.
23.The learned Additional Government Pleader had relied upon the
cross examination of PW1, especially question Nos. 51 and 52. The said
Sheik Meeran for the above said question has simply admitted that he had
lodged a complaint to the delinquent and the said Rathinakumar was brought
to the Assistant Commissioner of Police office at Palayamkottai by a special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
team. He may not a competent person to depose whether the delinquent had
obtained prior permission from his higher officials or not before proceeding
to Periyathalai in Tuticorin. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not to the
advantage of prosecution. PW5 is the person who had gone in the official
vehicle along with another private vehicle to Periyathalai at Tuticorin.
Therefore, the chief examination of PW5 has got much relevance. He had
deposed during his cross examination that the delinquent had informed about
the operation at Periyathalai to the higher officials while they moved towards
Periyathalai.
24.The enquiry officer has found that the delinquent has not proceeded
to Periyathalai, but only deputed a team to Periyathalai and found that the
charges are partly proved. The disciplinary authority has proceeded to hold
that the first count of charge is proved on the ground that the delinquent had
deputed the special team to Periyathalai to secure Rathinakumar in another
District beyond his jurisdiction without obtaining prior permission and
proceeded. This Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of PW1
who had proceeded to Periyathalai along with special team has categorically
deposed that the delinquent had already informed about the operation at
Periyathalai to the Inspector General of Police. Therefore, the findings of the
enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority are contrary to the oral
evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25.As far as Charge No.2 alleging that one Rathinakumar was illegally
detained for nearly 1 ½ hours in a private house under the guise of an
investigation is concerned, the private house owner has been examined as
PW11. In his chief examination, he has not mentioned the name of the
delinquent. During the cross examination for Question No.3, he had stated
that his friend Ponnukutty alone had requested him to open the house for
bringing the said Rathinakumar and there was no instruction from the police
officials to open his house. The deposition of the house owner is more
material to prove the alleged illegal detention of Rathinakumar in his house.
However, he had not found the delinquent officer or any other police official
except his friend Ponnukutty. It is also pertinent to point out that neither
Rathinakumar nor any one of his family members have approached any
higher police official or the High Court alleging illegal detention by the
police authority. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the finding of the enquiry officer and the acceptance of the said
finding by the disciplinary authority of illegal detention are clearly without
any evidence whatsoever.
26.As far as the third count of charge is concerned, it is alleged that the
petitioner had used the Government vehicle and another private vehicle with
the malicious purpose of smuggled properties on 03.01.2019 without any
permission from the superior officer for personal furtherance and he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
refused to sign the alleged log diary for the above said vehicle in dropping to
Periyathalai village with an intention of hide suspicious activities.
27.The first count of charge as against the writ petitioner is that he had
exeeded his jurisdiction and entered into Periyathalai at Tuticorin District
without permission from the superior authority. In the above said charge, the
enquiry officer has arrived at a specific finding that the petitioner has not
gone to Periyathalai, but he had only deputed his Subordinate Officers to
Periyathalai. This finding of the enquiry officer has been accepted by the
disciplinary authority. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not gone to
Periyathalai at all. In such circumstances, the allegation as against the
delinquent, he had used the Government vehicle as well as private vehicle to
go to Periyathalai on 03.01.2019 for some illegal purpose falls to ground. The
driver of the vehicle has been examined as PW6. During his cross
examination, in question No.2, he had deposed that he has given a false
statement that the petitioner/delinquent had refused to sign the log book.
Therefore, the two sets of allegation in third count of charges have not been
proved. The driver would be the more competent person to speak about the
allegation as against the delinquent that he had refused to sign the log book.
When he had categorically deposed that he had given a false statement under
pressure from the authorities that the petitioner had refused to sign the log
book, the said aspect should have been taken into consideration by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority. PW6, the driver had
further deposed for Question No.3 during the cross examination that the
petitioner/ delinquent had not refused to sign in the day log book. In such
circumstances, the finding of the enquiry officer that Charge No.3 stands
proved is clearly without evidence whatsoever.
28.As far as Charge No.4, it relates to the allegation that the
petitioner/delinquent had permitted the accused person Rathinakumar to
escape with the handcuff from the seashore of Periyathalai and he had failed
to produce the accused before the competent Court within 24 hours. The
delinquent had further failed to lodge a complaint for the said incident
thereby violated Section 57 of Cr.P.C.
29.No F.I.R has been registered as against the said Rathinakumar either
by delinquent or by any other succeeding officer on any complaint lodged by
the said Sheik Meeran. Therefore, the said Rathinakumar was not an accused
in any criminal case at the relevant point of time or at any time based upon
the complaint of Sheik Meeran. In such circumstances, there cannot be any
allegation as against the delinquent officer that he had permitted the accused
person to escape from the custody. There is no complaint from any one of the
police stations or from the Assistant Commissioner of Police office that a
handcuff is missing. When no F.I.R was registered either by delinquent or by
any other succeeding officer, the delinquent cannot be charged for alleged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
misconduct of permitting the Rathinakumar for escaping from the police
custody. Therefore, this finding of the enquiry officer as well as the authority
that the said charge has been proved is without any evidence whatsoever.
30.A perusal of the statement of witnesses reveal that PW6 who is the
driver of the vehicle, alleged to have been used to go to Periyathalai, has been
cross examined by the enquiry officer who had put seven questions to PW6.
Therefore, it is clear that the enquiry officer has also chosen to participate in
the enquiry as if he is the Presenting Officer on behalf of the department.
31.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2010) 2
SCC 772 ( State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha) in
Paragraph No.28 has held as follows:
“28.Enquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in
the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be
a representative of the department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence
presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent
official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid
procedure has not been observed.”
32.In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear
that the enquiry officer having cross examined PW6 has projected himself as
representative of the disciplinary authority and he has not acted as an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
independent adjudicator.
33.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2009) 2
SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others) in
Paragraph No.14 has held as follows:
“14.Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi
judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial
function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be
found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive
at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on
record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during
investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by
itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents.
The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did
not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by
the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as
evidence....”
34.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgement reported in AIR 1964
SC 364 (Union of India Vs. H.C.Goel) in Paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 has held
as follows:
“22.We are not prepared to accept this contention. Malafide
exercise of power can be attacked independently on the ground that
it is malafide. Such an exercise of power is always liable to be
quashed on the main ground that it is not a bonafide exercise of
power. But we are not prepared to hold that if malafides are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
alleged and bonafides are assumed in favour of the appellant, its
conclusion on a question of fact cannot be successfully challenged
even if it is manifest that there is no evidence to support it. The two
infirmities are separate and distinct though, conceivably, in some
cases, both may be present. There may be cases of no evidence even
where the Government is acting bonafide; the said infirmity may
also exist where the Government is acting malafide and in that case,
the conclusion of the Government not supported by any evidence
may be the result of malafides, but that does not mean that if it is
proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the
Government, a writ of certiorari will not issue without further proof
of malafides. That is why we are not prepared to accept the learned
Attorney General's argument that since no malafides are alleged
against the appellant in the present case, no writ of certiorari' can
be issued in favour of the respondent.
23.That takes us to the merits of the respondent's contention
that the conclusion of the appellant that the third charge framed
against the respondent had been proved, is based on no evidence.
The learned Attorney-General has stressed before us that in dealing
with this question, we ought to bear in mind the fact that the
appellant is acting with the determination to root out corruption,
and so, if it is shown that the view taken by he appellant is a
reasonably possible view, this Court should not sit in appeal over
that decision and seek to decide whether this Court would have
taken the same view or not. This contention is no doubt absolutely
sound. The only test which we can legitimately apply in dealing with
this part of the respondent's case is, is there any evidence on which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a finding can be made against the respondent that charge No. 3 was
proved against him? In exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 on
such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the
sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular
conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the
authority which dealt with the question; but the High Court can and
must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the
impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence
led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow
that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This
approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence
as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the
impugned conclusion follows or not. Applying this test, we are
inclined to hold that the respondent's grievance is well-founded
because, in our opinion, the finding which is implicit in the
appellant's order dismissing the respondent that charge number 3 is
proved against him is based on no evidence.”
35.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2009) 2
SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi Vs.Punjab National Bank and others) in
paragraph No.23 has held as follows:
“23......A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which
is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be
applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of
natural justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based
on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same
could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion,
as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances
be held to be a substitute for legal proof. “
36.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2022) 13
SCC 329 (Union Bank of India Vs.Biswanath Battacharjee) dated
31.01.2021 in Paragraph No.21 has held as follows:
“21. The bank is correct, when it contends that an appellate
review of the materials and findings cannot ordinarily be
undertaken, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Yet, from H.C. Goel onwards, this court has consistently ruled that
where the findings of the disciplinary authority are not based on
evidence, or based on a consideration of irrelevant material, or
ignoring relevant material, are mala fide, or where the findings are
perverse or such that they could not have been rendered by any
reasonable person placed in like circumstances, the remedies under
Article 226 of the Constitution are available, and intervention,
warranted. For any court to ascertain if any findings were beyond
the record (i.e., no evidence) or based on any irrelevant or
extraneous factors, or by ignoring material evidence, necessarily
some amount of scrutiny is necessary. A finding of “no evidence” or
perversity, cannot be rendered sans such basic scrutiny of the
materials, and the findings of the disciplinary authority.....”
37.In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear
that though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of
India to interfere in the order of punishment is limited, the said power can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
exercised in cases where the findings have been rendered without any
evidence whatsoever and they are perverse in nature. In the present case, all
the four count of charges have been found to be partly proved/ proved by the
enquiry officer and the same has been accepted by the disciplinary authority
without any evidence whatsoever and in fact, contrary to the evidence on
record. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to invoke its power under
Article 226 of Constitution of India to interfere in the order of the
disciplinary authority imposing punishment.
38.In view of the above said deliberations, the orders impugned in the
writ petition are set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.01.2025.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2.The Director General of Police
Office of the Director General of Police
Tamil Nadu
Chennai 600 004
3.The Additional Director General of Police
Office of the Director General of Police
Law & Order
Chennai – 4
4.The Inspector General of Police /Commissioner of Police
Tirunelveli City
Tirunelveli
5.The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Law & Order
Tirunelveli City
Tirunelveli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
and WMP(MD).Nos.16994 and
16995 of 2024
21.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
