Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1460
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
S. Paramasivam – Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police, O/o. Director General of Police, Chennai & Others – Respondent
Case No : W.P. No. 23653 of 2014
Decided On : 15-12-2020
For the Petitioner:S. Xavier Felix, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S. Thangavel, Spl. Govt. Pleader.
The Court's jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings is limited to reviewing the manner of the decision, and it should not interfere unless the punishment is disproportionate or shocks the conscience.
Headnote:
Illicit Intimacy - Disciplinary Proceedings - 7 witnesses - Compulsory Retirement - Article 226 - B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995 (6) SCC 749) - Principal Secy. Govt. of A.P. v. M. Adinarayana (2004 (12) SCC 579) - Director General of Police, RPF & Ors. - Vs -Rajendra Kumar Dubey (C.A. No.3820/2020 dated 25.11.20) - Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Grade II P.C., faced charges of illicit intimacy and assaulting his wife. After an enquiry and subsequent appeals, the disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the order and be reinstated with all benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the enquiry was conducted fairly, the punishment was proportionate to the delinquency, and the authorities had independently applied their minds. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the punishment was just and reasonable.
Issues: The issues involved the fairness of the enquiry, proportionality of the punishment, and the Court's jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that it could only review the manner in which the decision was made and not re-appreciate the evidence. The punishment should be proportionate to the delinquency, and the Court should not interfere unless it shocks the conscience or is disproportionate.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the punishment imposed on the petitioner was found to be just and reasonable.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to quash the order passed by the 3rd respondent in P.R. No.F1/28/2009 u/r.3(b), dated 13.03.2010 imposing the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal under Ref. No.AP09/A2/2010, dated 07.07.2010 and reconfirmed by the 1st respondent in Review Petition under Proceedings C No.179598/AP.2(3)/2010, dated 01.03.2011 to quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to duty for all purposes with all consequential and monetary benefits with due regards to his seniority and service benefits.)
1. Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities and for a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential and monetary benefits, including restoration of his seniority and service benefits.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered into service as Grade II P.C. in the year 1997. Whileso, charges were levelled against the petitioner for alleged his illicit intimacy with another married woman and for the further act of throttling his wife’s neck, when she questioned about his nefarious acts. As the above allegations hits at the character and conduct of the petitioner, the respondents proceeded against the petitioner departmentally by initiating enquiry. The petitioner, even before framing of charges, divorce petition in HMOP No.56 of 2009 before the learned Principal Sub Judge, Theni.
3. Further to the initiation of departmental action, explanation was called for from the petitioner for which the petitioner submitted his explanation and being not satisfied with the explanation, enquiry was conducted in which the enquiry officer, after examining as many as 7 witnesses, who categorically pointed to the illicit acts of the petitioner, held the charges against the petitioner proved. After providing a copy of the report to the petitioner, further explanation was sought for and not being satisfied with the explanation offered, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 30.03.2010, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 2nd respondent, which was dismissed confirming the punishment imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 7.7.2010 and the further review before the 3rd respondent also ended in rejection, vide order dated 01.03.2011, which has led to the filing of the present petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterated the grounds raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, vehemently contended that the enquiry conducted was in flagrant violation of rules, as the petitioner was not provided with the necessary particulars to defend his case. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is disproportionate to the delinquency and, there being no negligence in the act of the petitioner in discharging his duties, his matrimonial discord cannot be a ground to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose the major penalty.
5. Per contra, Mr.S.Thangavel, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and the disciplinary authority, on independent application of mind to the materials available on record, has imposed the punishment. Further, the appeal and the revision were also dismissed by the concerned authority, on proper appreciation of materials and by way of a reasoned order and, there being no grievance expressed by the petitioner with regard to application of mind by the authorities while passing the order
