Madras High Court
Kannadhasan vs The Director General Of Police on 6 October, 2025
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD) No.17501 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD) No.17501 of 2021
Kannadhasan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Director General of Police
Law and Order
Chennai-600 004
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur
3.The Superintendent of Police
Thanjavur District, Thanjavur
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Thiruvaiyaru Sub-Division
Thanjavur District
5.The Inspector of Police
Ammapettai Police Station
Thanjavur District ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 07:21:57 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.17501 of 2021
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the
impugned dismissal order in P.R.No.14 of 2017 dated 14.05.2018 passed by
the 3rd respondent and consequential rejection of appeal order passed by the
2nd respondent in C.No.B2/APPEAL-37/2018 dated 17.12.2018 and
consequential rejection order of mercy petition passed by the 1st respondent in
Rc.No.385485/AP.1(1)/2020 dated 15.04.2020 and quash the same and
further directing the respondents 1 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner as
Constable, Armed Reserve, Thanjavur, with all service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Madhavan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders
dismissing the petitioner from service.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 07:21:57 pm )
2. The petitioner, who was appointed as Constable, Armed
Reserve, at Thanjavur, was dismissed from service, after the Enquiry Officer in
the disciplinary proceedings found that the charges framed against the
petitioner that he was involved in kidnapping of a minor girl and misbehaving
with her, have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, namely, third
respondent dismissed the petitioner from service under the impugned order
dated 14.05.2018. The Appellate Authority, namely, second respondent
upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated 17.12.2018.
The mercy petition filed by the petitioner before the first respondent also came
to be rejected under the impugned order of the first respondent, dated
15.04.2020. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, this writ petition has been
filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent
to the passing of the impugned order dated 17.12.2018, by the Appellate
Authority (second respondent) rejecting the petitioner's appeal, the Criminal
Court, by its Judgment dated 22.08.2019, has acquitted the petitioner of the
criminal charges, which are identical to the charges framed against the
petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings. He also drew the attention of this
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 07:21:57 pm )
Court to the deposition of the witnesses in the disciplinary proceedings and
would submit that even though they have deposed that they were not aware
that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the misconduct as per
the charges framed against him, the Enquiry Officer, by total non-application
of mind, contrary to the evidence available on record, has erroneously held
that the petitioner is found guilty of all the charges framed against him.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents would submit that only based on the
preponderance of probability, the petitioner has been found guilty of the
charges framed against him by the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary
proceedings. He would submit that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was
found at the place of the occurrence and since the same was found, the
Enquiry Officer has rightly held, based on the preponderance of probability,
that the petitioner has committed the misconduct as per the charges framed
against him. He would also submit, after referring to the counter filed by the
third respondent before this Court, that only from the scene of occurrence, the
victim was rescued by her relatives.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 07:21:57 pm )
5. Admittedly, as seen from the cross-examination of the
prosecution witnesses both before the disciplinary proceedings as well as in
the criminal proceedings, the victim's relatives have deposed that they were
not aware that the petitioner has committed the misconduct as per the
charges framed against him in the disciplinary proceedings. The Criminal
Court has also acquitted the petitioner of all the criminal charges registered
against him by giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. Admittedly, the
Criminal Court's order acquitting the petitioner was passed subsequent to the
order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the second respondent (Appellate Authority)
in the disciplinary proceedings, wherein the Appellate Authority has confirmed
the order of the third respondent (Disciplinary Authority) dismissing the
petitioner from service. Admittedly, the Appellate Authority did not have the
benefit of the order passed by the Criminal Court in the criminal proceedings
as it was passed subsequent to the passing of the order by the Appellate
Authority (second respondent). Though the acquittal in the criminal
proceedings on account of the benefit of doubt having been given to the
accused will not have any bearing to the disciplinary proceeding, which is
based on the preponderance of probability, the Appellate Authority, in the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 07:21:57 pm )
disciplinary proceedings, would have taken note of the fact that in the criminal
proceedings, the prosecution witnesses, namely, family members of the victim,
during their cross-examination, had similarly deposed that they were not
aware that the petitioner indeed committed the offence as per the criminal
charges registered against him in the criminal proceedings. The witnesses
both before the disciplinary proceedings as well as before the criminal
proceedings, on a prima facie consideration, have not made contradictory
statement. While that be so, this Court is of the considered view that when
the prosecution witnesses have themselves deposed that they were not aware
that the petitioner was indeed involved in the commission of the offence /
misconduct, he must be given one more opportunity before the Appellate
Authority (second respondent) to question the order of the Disciplinary
Authority (third respondent) dismissing him from service. Though the
disciplinary proceeding is decided based on preponderance of probability, this
Court is of the considered view that since the prosecution witnesses, namely,
family members of the victim, have consistently deposed both before the
Criminal Court as well as in the disciplinary proceedings, during their cross-
examination, that they are not aware that the petitioner indeed committed the
misconduct as per the charges framed against him in the disciplinary
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 07:21:57 pm )
proceedings, necessarily, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority
(second respondent) dated 17.12.2018 has to be quashed and the matter has
to be remanded back to the Appellate Authority (second respondent) for fresh
consideration on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be
fixed by this Court.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order of the second respondent
(Appellate Authority) dated 17.12.2018, is hereby quashed and the matter is
remanded back to the second respondent (Appellate Authority) for fresh
consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance
with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. In view of the
impugned order dated 17.12.2018, passed by the Appellate Authority (second
respondent) being quashed by this Court, the consequential order dated
15.04.2020, passed by the first respondent, in the mercy petition, is also
quashed. The second respondent (Appellate Authority) is directed to dispose
of the petitioner's appeal by adhering to the principles of natural justice within
a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 07:21:57 pm )
7. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
No costs.
06.10.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Director General of Police,
Law and Order,
Chennai-600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvaiyaru Sub-Division,
Thanjavur District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Ammapettai Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 07:21:57 pm )
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
krk
06.10.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 07:21:57 pm )
