IMPORTANT POINT
Non-discrimination in disciplinary proceedings and the requirement for consistent punishment for similarly placed co-delinquents.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mahadevan, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.5774 of 2017.)

1. The State has preferred this appeal, as against the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.5774 of 2017, whereby the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect, imposed on the respondent was quashed.

2. The necessary facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

2.1. The respondent was working as a Head Constable in the Chennai City Police. In 2005, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) conducted an examination for selection of Grade II Police Constables. While so, allegations surfaced that some police personnel had been involved in leaking the question papers for this recruitment exam. The Crime Branch CID (CBCID) conducted an investigation into the matter and ultimately, found that the question papers for the written exam conducted on 27.03.2005 and the retest for General Knowledge subject conducted on 01.06.2005 had been leaked. Several police personnel including the respondent were identified as being involved in the illegal act of obtaining and circulating these question papers.

2.2. The CBCID registered a criminal case and charge sheeted many police personnel before the criminal court. Parallel departmental proceedings were also initiated against the delinquent police officers. The charges framed against the respondent were (i) illegally obtaining and leaking the question paper for 27.03.2005 exam; (ii) illegally leaking out questions and answers for 01.06.2005 retest; and (iii) aiding some candidates appearing for the said selection by misusing his official position. Earlier, the respondent had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9609 of 2006 and obtained an order of interim stay on 07.04.2006, on passing any final orders in the departmental inquiry conducted against him. However, he withdrew the said writ petition. Thereafter, oral inquiry was conducted, where the respondent participated. The charges against the respondent were held as proven. The Disciplinary Authority, Commissioner of Police, awarded the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect vide order dated 31.10.2015. The appeal filed against the said order, ended in dismissal by the order of the Director General of Police dated 20.10.2016. Challenging the said orders passed by the appellant authorities, the respondent filed the instant writ petition no.5774 of 2017.

2.3. By order dated 20.12.2021, the learned Judge, citing the cases of similarly placed co-delinquents, viz., M.Maruthupandi and M.Arul, where the orders of punishment inflicted on them, were quashed, held that the punishment imposed on the respondent was discriminatory, and accordingly, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the punishment order. The relevant portion of the said order dated 20.12.2021, is extracted hereunder:

"3. It is not in dispute that the alleged involvement of the petitioner under the charge memos are identical to that of the cases of M.Marudhupandi and M.Arul. In the case of M.Arul (supra), this Court had observed that the punishment imposed by the petitioner would amount to discrimination and accordingly the punishment was set aside. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

"5. One of the co-delinquent M.Maruthupandi, who was levelled with similar charges and whose name was also dropped from the charge sheet, approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7118 of 2017, praying to quash the order of punishment and to grant monetary benefits.

6. In the aforesaid decision, this Court had observed that M.Maruthupandi, Dharmaraj & Mr.T.Radhakrishnan, I.A.S., were arrayed as accused in Cr.No.2600 of 2005. During the course of departmental proceedings, Dharmaraj, M.Maruthupandi were imposed with the punishment of Black Mark, while the co-accused Mr.T.