The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and highlighted the impermissibility of relying on statements made during preliminary enquiry in disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The charge impugned against the impugned through the charge memo dated 28.04.2009 is that there was a reprehensible conduct in having illegal intimacy with Thiru P.Shanmuga Sundaram, Sub Inspector of Police and thereby, created a bad name to the Police Department.

2. Based on the levelled charges, an enquiry was conducted in which the charges were held to be proved. Consequently, the third respondent herein, through impugned order dated 18.04.2011, had imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for two years with cumulative effect. The punishment came to be modified by the Appellate Authority/second respondent herein through the impugned order dated 15.07.2011, modifying the punishment to postponement of increment for two years “without cumulative effect”. Further, the Mercy Petition was rejected by the first respondent on 06.02.2017. The original punishment order as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority are put under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Mr. S. Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds attacking the orders impugned in the present writ petition. Firstly, he would submit that Rule 4A of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules has been violated, since common enquiry was not held in the case of the petitioner as well as the co-delinquent and in view of the same, the charge as against the co-delinquent was held to be not proved, whereas in the case of the petitioner, it was held to be proved. Secondly, he questioned the Enquiry Report, wherein reliance was placed on the statement made by the witnesses in the preliminary enquiry, which is impermissible in view of the various decisions of this Court. Thirdly, he would submit that the Appellate Authority, having agreed with the delinquent officers ground that reliance cannot be placed to the statement made by the witnesses during enquiry, ought to have set aside the punishment instead of modifying it.

4. Per contra, Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the charge against the petitioner is serious in nature since she is from a disciplined police force. He would further submit that during the course of enquiry, the procedure contemplated for conduct of enquiry was properly adhered to and after giving opportunity to the petitioner, the charges were held to be proved. He also submitted that the punishment, which came to be modified by the Appellate Authority, is proportionate to the levelled charges and therefore, no interference is required.

5. Rule 4A of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules provides that where more than one member of the service are involved, the authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose any of the penalties specified in rule 2 shall be the authority in respect of the member who holds the highest post and the disciplinary proceedings against all of them “shall be taken together”.

6. In the instant case, the charge itself indicates the involvement of one more Sub Inspector of Police, namely P.Shanmuga Sundaram. If that be so, in view of Rule 4A of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have proceeded against the petitioner as well as the co-delinquent jointly, instead of conducting two separate enquiries. This failure on their part has now created an anomaly, where the charges framed against the petitioner was held to be proved, whereas in the case of co-delinquent, it was held as not proved. In view of the violation of the procedure contemplated under Rule 4A of the Tamil Nadu Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, the consequential punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained.

7. Insofar as the second ground raised by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has placed reliance on the statement made by the witnesses during preliminary enquiry, it is needless to point out that such statements are recorded behind the back of the petitioner and wit