The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal trials, emphasizing judicial review's limitation to procedural fairness and legal compliance.

ORDER :

M. Jothiraman, J.

Under assail is the punishment order passed by the third respondent dated 28.01.2017 and the proceedings dated 06.01.2019 issued by the first respondent.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was enlisted on 25.10.1993 as Grade II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police and thereafter, promoted as Grade I Constable in the year 2003 and subsequently, promoted as Head Constable in the year 2008. He had obtained two medals from the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Tamilnadu for his service during 2004 and 2013. A charge memo was issued on 05.07.2016 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955. He submitted his explanation on 03.11.2016. Charge was that one Prem @ Prem Anand is a political man and that the petitioner having friendship and in order to extract money, he had illegally helped and assisted the said Prem @ Prem Anand in preparing petition under RTI Act. The said Prem @ Prem Anand with the petition threatened and blackmailed one Mr.Srinivasan, owner of Sabarees Hotel and south RTO Mr.Singaravelu to extract money. Therefore, two cases were registered before S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai in Cr.No.235 of 2016 under Sections 465 , 385 and 506(i) IPC and in Cr.No.237 of 2016 under Sections 465 and 385 IPC. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Dowry Cell, Madurai City was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Enquiry Officer held that charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved, by his minute dated 14.12.2016. The Enquiry Officer had not conducted the enquiry properly. In the enquiry, though P.W.1 Prem had admitted that the petitioner had not helped and assisted in preparing the petition under RTI Act and also P.W.1 admitted that he had not received any bribe from the owner of Sabarees Hotel and RTO and that the petitioner did not demand the bribe. Therefore, the charge against petitioner goes. Based on enquiry report, the third respondent had passed punishment order, namely, postponement of next increment for a period of three years, which shall operate to postpone his future increments. He preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 06.03.2017 and the same had been rejected by an order dated 23.10.2017. He had filed review before the first respondent and the same had been rejected by an order dated 06.01.2019. The criminal case in C.C.No.394 of 2016 wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 and the said case ended in acquittal on 22.05.2017. As far as Cr.No.235 of 2016 is concerned, final report not yet filed. Hence, the writ petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that during enquiry P.W.1 categorically admitted that the petitioner had not helped and assisted for preparing petition under RTI Act. Further, P.W.1 also admitted that he had not received bribe from the Hotel owner and RTO and therefore, petitioner did not demand any bribe. He would submit that during enquiry, P.W.1 also admitted S.S.Colony Police had pressurized P.W.1 to give confession as against the petitioner. Without considering evidence adduced in the departmental proceedings, enquiry officer, without applying his judicial mind, gave a conclusion that charge levelled against the petitioner stands proved and the third respondent, without applying his mind, has imposed punishment. He would submit that the third respondent failed to see that no witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.8 had spoke about the involvement of the petitioner in preparing petitions under RTI Act along with P.W.1. Therefore, the enquiry and imposition of punishment is intentional. He would submit that the first respondent failed to see that two criminal cases were registered against Prem and others