The main legal point established in the judgment is that in departmental disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof required is based on preponderance of probabilities, which is different from the standard of proof in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in PR No.34/2012 dated 25.12.2012 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in C.No.B1/AP.3/1301/2013 dated 04.2.2013 and quash the same.

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in PR No.33/2012 dated 25.12.2012 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in C.No.B1/AP.2/1300/2013 dated 04.2.2013 and quash the same.)

Common Order:

1. The orders of punishment dated 25.12.2012, postponement of the petitioners next increment for three years, which shall operate to postpone their future increment, which was confirmed by the Appellate authority in order dated 04.02.2013 are under challenge in the present writ petitions.

2. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.7279 of 2014 was recruited as Grade- II Police Constable and was promoted to the Post of Head Constable. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.7280 of 2014 was recruited as Grade-II Police Constable and was promoted to the Post of Special Sub Inspector of Police.

3. Charge Memos under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were framed against the writ petitioners in proceedings dated 28.03.2012. The charge against the petitioners is that during the surprise prohibition raid conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with the Sub-Inspector of Police and others on 29.01.2012, the inspection team found one Manickam, Chinnaraj, Sakthivel and Murugan were tapping toddy from the palmirah trees and they were caught red-handed and against them, a criminal case in Crime No.31- 32 of 2005 under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act was also registered. Statements were recorded, which reveals that they were permitted to continue their illegal business by receiving the mamool by the writ petitioners. During the preliminary enquiry, it was found that the petitioners were assisted those accused persons by receiving mamool and allowing them to tap toddy from the palmirah trees, which is in violation of the Prohibition laws in force. Accordingly, the writ petitioners were placed under suspension. Charge memos were issued to the petitioners and an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges are proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned orders of punishment, imposing the punishment of postponement of petitioners increment for three years with cumulative effect and the writ appeals filed by the petitioners were also rejected.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners mainly contended that there is absolutely no evidence to establish the charges. Witnesses were turned hostile. In the absence of any such evidence, the punishment imposed by the authorities cannot be sustained. Thus, the impugned orders of punishment are liable to be set aside. The learned Senior counsel relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 20.04.2009 passed in W.P.No.39098 of 2006, wherein it was held that the statement made during the preliminary enquiry, not corroborated by cross examination can be validly relied on by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, the dismissal in that case was vitiated based on no evidence. Relying on the said judgment, the learned Senior Counsel made a submission that in the present case, the witnesses turned hostile and therefore, the orders of punishment were issued without based on any acceptable evidence and thus, untenable.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that statements from the accused persons were recorded. Charge memos were issued accordingly and during the enquiry, the allegations were established. The Enquiry Officer taking