Madras High Court
V.Priyamalini vs The Secretary To Government on 12 September, 2025
WP.No.14112 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 29.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :12.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP.No.14112 of 2024
and
WMP.Nos.15302 & 15301 of 2024
V.Priyamalini
W/o.Bala Thandayuthapani
Inspector of Police,
Erode Railway Police Station
Erode District.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government
Home (Police IV) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner for Tribunal for
Disciplinary Proceedings,
No.5/1B, Vinayanaga Nagar
Madurai 625 023.
3. The Director General of Police
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4.
4. The Superintendent of Police
Railways, Erode-8.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the 3rd respondent in connection with the Proceedings in RC
No. 6319089 / Con.V (1) / 2024 dt.26.4.24, enclosing the report of the
2nd respondent in his letter Rc No. 120/ 2020/A1 (TDP.No.6/ 2020 ) dt.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
WP.No.14112 of 2024
10.10.23 with a covering letter of memorandum of the 4 th respondent
in C.No.F1/ 4734/ 2024 dt 3.5.2024 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner for Promotion to the
Post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category - I in the ensuing
Panel and promote her as such and grant her all consequential service
and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sasi Kumar
Government Advocate
*****
ORDER
The brief facts which give rise to the instant writ petition is that,
when the petitioner was serving as the Inspector of Police in All Women
Police Station, Devakottai, one Balasubramaniam gave a corruption
complaint against the petitioner before the Vigilance and Anti
Corruption Wing. Based on such complaint, the 2nd respondent has
initiated an enquiry before the Commissioner of Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings in TDP No.6 of 2020. The Tribunal, after concluding the
enquiry has submitted the positive report on 10.10.2023. In pursuance
of the enquiry report, the petitioner was asked to give further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
representation vide communication dated 07.05.2024. Hence, the
petitioner preferred the present writ petition challenging the enquiry
report and consequential notice calling upon the petitioner to give
further representation.
2. Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Muthappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sasi
Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner joined the
service during 1999, and during 2012, she was promoted as Inspector
of Police. While so, during 2017, when she was serving as Inspector of
Police, All Women Police Station, Devakottai, she conducted an enquiry
based upon the complaint given by one Selvaraj, husband of Rajathi,
regarding the elopement of his wife Rajathi with one Balasubramaniam.
Therefore, based upon the above complaint, she enquired
Balasubramaniam in accordance with law by issuing summons.
Aggrieved with the same, Mr.Balasubramaniam preferred an
anticipatory bail application but, the said application later was closed.
The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that enraged by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
legitimate enquiry conducted by the petitioner, the said
Balasubramaniam with ulterior motive has given a complaint before the
Vigilance and Anti Corruption officials on 03.12.2017, and also filed
Crl.OP.(MD) No.17015/2017 to register a criminal case against the
petitioner. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel
that the said Balasubramaniam had also initiated proceedings before
the Human Rights Commission in HRC No.10005/2018. Though in
those proceedings, there is a finding that there are no prima facie case
against the petitioner, the respondent-Department has initiated enquiry
proceedings before the Commissioner of Disciplinary Proceedings in
TDP.No.6/2020, which according to the petitioner is liable to be
quashed on the following grounds:-
(a). The very initiation of the complaint in spite of the observation
by the Higher Judicial Forum viz., the High Court as well as the
State Human Rights Commission that there are no prima facie
case against the petitioner, is ipso facto illegal.
(b). In spite of issuance of summons to the de facto complainant
viz., Balasubramaniam, he did not appear before the Court for
cross examination. Therefore, the entire evidence should be
eschewed.
(c). Except unreliable PW7, who is the friend of the de facto
complainant, the other witnesses turned hostile and even PW7 is
only hearsay witnesses. Therefore, the finding of the Enquiry
Authority is without any evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
(d) It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that
the respondent-Authority did not consider the written arguments
of the petitioner and has simply reproduced the evidence and
ultimately arrived at a conclusion without having any vestige for
application of mind. Hence, prayed to quash the enquiry report.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would contend
that the argument put forth by the petitioner is in the nature of re-
appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done in a judicial review. The
learned Government Advocate would further contend that there are no
legal defence raised by the petitioner and the defences which are raised
by the petitioner are in factual aspects, which require re-appreciation of
evidence, and the same cannot be done in the judicial review. The
learned Government Advocate would further submit that it is too
premature to challenge the enquiry report. If at all the petitioner has
got any grievance, that has to be addressed only after submitting her
further representation to the respondents, and after the final order of
the respondent, by preferring an appeal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
writ petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side
submissions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
6. There are no serious dispute in respect of the procedure
adopted by the respondent in conducting enquiry. From the records, it
is amply clear that the enquiry in TDP No.6/2020 was commenced
against the petitioner on 03.06.2022. The Disciplinary Authority has
examined 11 witnesses and marked 13 documents. After recording the
witnesses statement, concluded the enquiry on 31.08.2023. After
conclusion of the enquiry, the employer has submitted his written
arguments on 13.09.2023 and the present petitioner viz., the accused
has filed her written arguments on 22.09.2023. Thus after hearing
either side, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order on
10.10.2023. In pursuance thereof, the same was communicated to the
petitioner on 07.05.2024 calling upon her to give further explanation.
Therefore, apparently there could not have been any grievance in
respect of the procedure followed by the Disciplinary Authority in
conducting the enquiry.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that, immediately after initiation
of TDP enquiry No.6/2020, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP(MD)
No.27513/2022, wherein the petitioner has raised an objection to
proceed with the Disciplinary Enquiry on the ground that there is a
finding in her favour by the Judicial Forum viz., the High Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
Crl.OP.No.17015/2017 and the Human Rights Commission report in
HRC.No.10005/2018 dated 15.12.2020, to the effect that there are no
prima facie case against her. But, in spite of such finding, according to
the petitioner, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is contrary to
law. However, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated
01.12.2022 directed the respondents to proceed with the enquiry and
has ultimately given liberty to the petitioner to raise all her defence
which are put forth before this Court in the writ proceeding.
8.In view of the order passed in WP.No.27513 of 2022, the
petitioner now cannot re-agitate the same point before the Court by
way of yet another writ after conducting the enquiry and before passing
final order. Therefore, unless the Disciplinary Authority gives an
ultimate finding about the defence of the petitioner raised in pursuance
of the order in W.P.No.27513 of 2022, the petitioner cannot re-agitate
the same after the service of enquiry report calling for further
representation. Further, we must also keep in mind that this Court in
earlier writ petition has given a finding that there is no infirmity in
proceeding with the enquiry. It is in this background, the question of
challenging the enquiry report based upon the very same ground, is
erroneous and illegal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
9. Apart from the above defence, the other legal defence put
forth by the petitioner is that her written argument has not been
considered. While looking at the enquiry report, the Commissioner has
received the complaint on 12.06.2020, and has framed charge on
05.10.2020 and served the copy of the charge memorandum to the
petitioner on 21.12.2020. Based upon the charge memorandum, the
enquiry was commenced on 03.06.2022 and completed the enquiry on
31.08.2023. In the meanwhile, the prosecution has submitted the
written arguments on 13.09.2023, and the delinquent submitted her
written arguments on 22.09.2023. After that, the enquiry report was
submitted on 10.10.2023. Though it was contended that the enquiry
report is nothing but reproduction of the charge memorandum,
deposition of the evidence and the extraction of the written arguments,
while looking at the enquiry report, the authority after analysing all the
above materials has given the ultimate positive finding.
10.As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, though
the Commissioner of Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings has
extracted the charges, evidences and arguments from page 1 to 47, but
from page 48 onwards, the Tribunal has discussed about the arguments
and the evidences. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
arguments of the petitioner that the Commissioner did not consider her
written arguments is factually incorrect. Therefore, the petitioner's
argument that the Commission did not consider the petitioner's written
arguments also fails.
11. The other defence put forth by the petitioner is that there are
no positive evidence against the petitioner to arrive at the conclusion.
In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785
and the order of this Court in CRP (PD).No.2182 of 2019 [G.Balaji
and another Vs. Saravanasamy] and another judgment of this Court
in WP(MD).Nos.11379 to 11382 & 13608 to 13614 of 2021
[K.Sugumar Vs. The Commissioner of Customs and 2 others] and
would submit that the evidence of the complainant of Balasubramaniam
has no evidentiary value, as he did not subject himself for cross
examination, therefore, his evidence has to be eschewed. If the
complainant's evidence is eschewed, the other available evidences
against the petitioner is the evidence of one Mr.Karthikeyan(PW7), even
his evidence is also hearsay in nature. Therefore, according to the
petitioner apparently there are no evidence against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
Hence, contended that the findings rendered by the Commissioner of
Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings is perverse and without any
evidence. While considering the precedents relied by the petitioner,
those cases are not arising in the disciplinary proceedings, but has
arisen in a civil suit, and in a proceedings initiated by the Commissioner
of Central Excise Department against the smuggling of gold as well as
against the imposition of Tax. As we all know, Standard of Proof in the
above proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are not similar. Further
there is no requirement for strict application of Evidence Act in the
departmental proceedings. Therefore, those rulings are not applicable
to the present facts of the case.
12. It is well settled principle of law that the Rule of evidence is
not strictly applicable to the domestic enquiry. The main ground urged
by the petitioner is that, the de facto complainant though was examined
in chief, he did not turn up for cross examination and the evidentiary
value of the other witness viz., PW7 is hearsay in nature and therefore,
is inadmissible. As we know, what is essential in a disciplinary
proceedings is a preponderance of probability and not proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. No doubt, PW1 who is the de facto complainant did
not turn up for cross examination. However, this Court cannot lose
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
sight of the complaint given by the de facto complainant against the
present petitioner as she intimidated him. Even in the typed set of
papers submitted by the petitioner, she has annexed a complaint given
by the de facto complainant to the DGP on 30.03.2018 about the
alleged intimidation made by the petitioner. But, in spite of the above
scenario, he deposed before the Disciplinary Authority on 03.06.2022.
It is not in serious dispute that the de facto complainant was issued
with various summons to appear for cross examination. Since because
he has not turned up for cross examination, the finding rendered by the
Disciplinary Authority cannot be held as without any evidence. Apart
from that, though PW1 did not turn up for cross examination, there is
an evidence given by PW7, which has referrence about the delinquency
of the petitioner. As we already stated, since because the evidence of
PW7 is hearsay, that by itself is not a ground to reject his evidence.
13. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Pradip
Kumar Banerjee, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 111, where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that in a corruption case, even when the de
facto complainant was not examined, the same cannot be a ground to
reject the complaint against the delinquent. This Court would also like
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Rajasthan v. Heem Singh, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 569, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has culled out the powers of the Court while
exercising the judicial review. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that, while determining whether the finding in a Disciplinary
proceedings is based on some evidence, the High Court only must
undertake threshold level of scrutiny. While looking at the evidence
available before this Court, and applying the principles of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court namely the application of threshold level of scrutiny,
the evidence of the de facto complainant and PW7 is there. Therefore,
this Court cannot term the enquiry report is without any evidence. It is
for the Disciplinary Authority to decide to accept the evidence of PW1
and PW7. If this Court gives any finding upon the evidence of the de
facto complainant and PW7, it is nothing but transgressing the
limitation of the power of the Hight Court in exercising the judicial
review.
14. It is also relevant to mention here that while exercising the
power of judicial review, this Court must exercise a Rule of restrain, as
the determination about the misconduct is primarily within the domain
of the disciplinary Authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
held that, the High Court while exercising the power of judicial review
does not assume mantle of the disciplinary authority nor the judge wear
the hat of an employer. It has further held that, the High Court must
have a deference to a finding of fact by the disciplinary authority, when
there are some evidence available for arriving at such finding. In this
regard, it is appropriate to extract the relevant paragraph 37 in Heem
Singh's case [cited supra]:-
“37. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters, there are
two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a rule of restraint.
The second defines when interference is permissible. The rule of
restraint constricts the ambit of judicial review. This is for a valid
reason. The determination of whether a misconduct has been
committed lies primarily within the domain of the disciplinary
authority. The Judge does not assume the mantle of the
disciplinary authority. Nor does the Judge wear the hat of an
employer. Deference to a finding of fact by the disciplinary
authority is a recognition of the idea that it is the employer who is
responsible for the efficient conduct of their service. Disciplinary
enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they
are not governed by strict rules of evidence which apply to judicial
proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not the strict
standard which governs a criminal trial, of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a
preponderance of probabilities. Within the rule of preponderance,
there are varying approaches based on context and subject. The
first end of the spectrum is founded on deference and autonomy
— deference to the position of the disciplinary authority as a fact-
finding authority and autonomy of the employer in maintaining
discipline and efficiency of the service. At the other end of the
spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to
interfere when the findings in the enquiry are based on no
evidence or when they suffer from perversity. A failure to consider
vital evidence is an incident of what the law regards as a perverse
determination of fact. Proportionality is an entrenched feature of
our jurisprudence. Service jurisprudence has recognised it for long
years in allowing for the authority of the court to interfere when
the finding or the penalty are disproportionate to the weight of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
evidence or misconduct. Judicial craft lies in maintaining a steady
sail between the banks of these two shores which have been
termed as the two ends of the spectrum. Judges do not rest with
a mere recitation of the hands-off mantra when they exercise
judicial review. To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary
enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level of
scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the
court that there is some evidence to support the charge of
misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not
allow the court to reappreciate evidentiary findings in a
disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the
Judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the first
principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the
exercise of robust common sense without which the Judges' craft
is in vain.”
15. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner
has raised the legal defence viz., the finding rendered by the enquiry
authority is contrary to the findings of the higher judicial Forum viz.,
the High Court and State Human Rights Commission, has already been
dealt by the learned Single Judge in WP (MD).No.27513/2022.
Therefore, the very same defence cannot be taken after the completion
of the enquiry, as the learned Single Judge left such defence to be
adjudicated by the disciplinary authority.
16. Coming to the absence of any evidence against the petitioner,
this Court cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence and must only find
whether is there some evidence available against the petitioner. While
doing so, this Court finds the existence of some evidence. Whether it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
reliable or not reliable, acceptable or not acceptable is left with the
domain of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, this Court absolutely
does not find any merits in this writ petition.
17. In view of the above discussions, this Court directs the
respondents to pass final order in accordance with law within a period
of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is
made clear that the observation made in the writ petition is only to
adjudicate upon the defence of the petitioner, and the respondents are
directed to pass final order uninfluenced by any of the observation
made in the present writ petition.
18. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed as directed above.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are
also closed.
12.09.2025
kmi
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kmi
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home (Police IV) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner for Tribunal for
Disciplinary Proceedings,
No.5/1B, Vinayanaga Nagar
Madurai 625 023.
3. The Director General of Police
Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4.
4. The Superintendent of Police
Railways, Erode-8.
Pre-Delivery Order in
12.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 02:01:54 pm )
