Madras High Court

S. Senthil Kumar vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 3 July, 2025

2025:MHC:1528

W.P.(MD) No.19408 of 2016

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 27.06.2025

Pronounced On : 03.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

W.P. (MD) No.19408 of 2016

S. Senthil Kumar,
S/o. K.Selvaraj,
Working as Head Constable,
Koodal Pudhur Police Station,
Madurai City, Madurai. ... Petitioner
Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police - VI) Department,
Chennai -09.

2.The Director General of Police,
Chennai - 04.

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Madurai.

4. The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Madurai District,
Madurai.

5. Mr. D.R. Shajahan,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thirumangalam Sub Division,
Madurai District. ... Respondents

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:28:16 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.19408 of 2016

PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, to call for the
records from the 1st respondent in her order in G.O.[2D] No. 82 dated.
02.03.2015, by confirming the orders passed by the 2nd & 3rd respondents
in his proceedings in Rc.No.l69065/AP2(3)/2008 dated. 11.09.2008 and
C.No: A2 (2)/10208/AP80/07 dated 14.11.2007 respectively and quash
the same and consequently pay, the all attendant monetary benefits due to
the petitioner in view of the above said punishment and pass any such
further or other orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. N. Sathish babu

For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate for R1 to R4

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. The Petitioner entered service in the Police Department as a

Grade II Police Constable on 25.05.1988. He was thereafter promoted to

the post of Head Constable on 01.12.2005. During the course of his

service, it is seen that the Petitioner had suffered as many as nine

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:28:16 pm )

punishments under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate

Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and five punishments under Rule

3(b), which relate to major penalties.

3. The Petitioner was proceeded against both in a criminal case and

departmentally for a serious act of misconduct. The 4th Respondent, who is

the competent authority, initially imposed the punishment of compulsory

retirement. On appeal, this punishment was modified to “Reduction in

time scale of Pay by 3 stages for 3 years, which shall operate and effect his

future increment”. However, in a further appeal, the original punishment

of compulsory retirement was restored. Challenging the same, the present

writ petition has been filed.

4. Even during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the

Petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service pursuant to the orders

passed in a writ petition filed by him, taking note of the fact that he had

been acquitted in the connected criminal proceedings and that a fair

enquiry ought to be held. However, the enquiry ultimately culminated in

the imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement. Thereafter, the

Petitioner was also subjected to another disciplinary proceeding, which he

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:28:16 pm )

challenged in W.P.(MD) No. 8441 of 2017. During the hearing of that writ

petition, the Petitioner appeared in person and gave an undertaking before

the Court that he would not challenge the order imposing the punishment

of compulsory retirement on him.

5. This Court, by order dated 28.11.2022, disposed of the writ

petition and recorded the statement made by the Petitioner before this

Court, which reads as follows:–

“4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was facing some other disciplinary proceedings in b1(1)/j.g.vz;:59/2016 and punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted.

5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge memo is proceeded further, the petitioner will be prejudiced. Moreover, it will not be served any purpose. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the charge memo. Moreover, the criminal case which was filed against the petitioner was already quashed.

6. The petitioner has appeared in person before this Court and gave an undertaking that, he will not challenge the compulsory retirement and punishment. The statement is recorded.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:28:16 pm )

6. Be that as it may, in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th

Respondent, the particulars of the misconduct alleged against the

Petitioner, which stood proved in the departmental enquiry, have been set

out as follows:–

“It is submitted that the above evidences are more than enough to say that the writ petitioner, instead of attending his duty, wantonly went to the Senthil cycle shop and Priya tea shop in a drunken mood and created unnecessary problem in the public place and committed this offence. The above statements are corroborated with the statements of prosecution witnesses 8 & 9. Even though some witnesses turned hostile during cross examination, the evidences given by the above witnesses clearly proves that the writ petitioner unnecessarily went to cycle shop and tea shop, without performing his duty at his duty place, leaving the place of duty allotted to him and has committed this offence in a drunken mood.”

7. The learned Government Advocate also placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Ors.

v. Sankar Ghosh, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 610, to contend that even if

the criminal proceedings conclude in favour of the employee, the same

would have no bearing on the findings recorded in a properly conducted

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:28:16 pm )

departmental enquiry. It is necessary to refer to the following passage

found in paragraph 18 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:–

“18. Above rule indicates that even if there is identity of charges levelled against the respondent before the Criminal Court as well as before the Enquiry Officer, an order of discharge or acquittal of a police officer by a Criminal Court shall not be a bar to the award of the departmental punishment. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have not considered the above-mentioned provision and have committed a mistake in holding that since the respondent was acquitted by a Criminal Court of the same charges, reinstatement was automatic. We find it difficult to support the finding recorded by the Tribunal which was confirmed by the High Court. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court. ”

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that there is

no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ

Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                     LS                                                                               03.07.2025
                     Index: Yes / No
                     Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
                     Neutral Citation : Yes / No




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                      ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:28:16 pm )





                     To

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Police - VI) Department, Chennai -09.

2.The Director General of Police, Chennai - 04.

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai.

4. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Madurai District, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:28:16 pm )

DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J

Pre-delivery Judgment made in

03.07.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 01:28:16 pm )