JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in RO No.40/2014 in C No.82/PR/41/2013 dated 22.01.2014, confirmed by the second respondent in RC No.031425 API(2)/2014 dated 14.10.2014 and further confirmed by the third respondent in RC No.029124/API(2)/2015 dated 08.11.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.)

1. The present Writ Petition is heard through Video Conferencing on 13.07.2021.

2. The charges against the petitioner is predominantly to the effect that on 28.07.2013, while he was serving as a Sub Inspector of Police at Avinankudi Police Station, Cuddalore District, he had misused his official position and entered into a Tasmac bar, consumed liquor, assaulted two persons, created records of drunkenness against another person, failed to register a case against such person etc. Pursuant to an enquiry, the first respondent had imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on 22.01.2014. The appeal before the second respondent and the review petition before the third respondent were rejected on 14.10.2014 and 08.11.2016 respectively. The petitioner challenges all these orders in the present Writ Petition.

3. The scope of interference in a matter of this nature, by the High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is very limited. In Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Others reported in 1999 (2) SCC 10, it was held that the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings in the departmental enquiry and that the power of judicial review will be restricted only to cases when there is no evidence in support of the findings in the enquiry or the findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior authority or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and another reported in 2009 (8) SCC 310, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court can only question the decision making process and not the decision itself. A similar view was also taken in the case of State Bank of India & Others Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow and another reported in 1994 (2) SCC 537.

4. In the present case, the charges against the petitioner was serious in nature. The petitioner herein had not challenged the conduct of the departmental enquiry alleging to the punishment on the ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Nevertheless, it is seen that, after the incident that occurred on 29.07.2013, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 30.07.2013 and charges were framed against him under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal), Rules 1955 [TNPSS Rules], on 08.11.2013. The Petitioner had given his explanation to the charges and not being satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 14.12.2013, had examined nine witnesses and placing reliance on the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6, had held that all the charges against the petitioner to be proved. The first respondent herein, in his order dated 22.01.2014, had considered the further representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2013 and had dealt with the charge memo, explanation, findings of the enquiry officer and the further representation of the petitioner and had independently adduced his reasons for imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the original punishment imposed by the first respondent herein.

5. In the appeal before the second respondent dated 02.02.2014, the petitioner herein had raised several grounds touching upon the findings of the enquiry offic