Disciplinary findings must be based on legally admissible evidence; lack of evidence warrants judicial intervention under Article 226.

ORDER :

The present writ petition has been filed by an Assistant Commissioner of Police challenging the order of punishment imposed upon him by the first respondent vide his proceedings dated 08.08.2024 wherein the petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect.

(A). Facts leading to the filing of this present writ petition are as follows:

2. The petitioner while he was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Control Room, Madurai City was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 on 22.10.2021 for the alleged delinquencies committed by him while he was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City.

3. The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 29.08.2022. Pending enquiry, the petitioner has given a request on 19.09.2022 to examine some of the police officials and to furnish the copies of call detail records from his mobile phone. However, no orders have been passed on the above said request.

4. The petitioner had challenged the charge memo in PR.No.29 of 2021 in WP.(MD).No.13459 of 2022 before this Court along with two other charge memos in different writ petitions. All the three writ petitions were heard together and were dismissed by a common order on 26.09.2023 holding that the charge memo cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent. Thereafter, the petitioner has participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report was submitted and the petitioner has submitted his further explanation on 01.12.2023. The petitioner was called upon to furnish his further representation on 24.04.2024. The petitioner has submitted his further explanation on 10.06.2024. Final orders were passed under the impugned Government Order dated 08.08.2024 imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(B). Contentions of the learned counsels appearing on either side are as follows:

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had contended that while the petitioner was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Police at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District, he received a phone call from a person claiming to be the Inspector General of Police, Southern Region and he had informed that one Mr.M.Sheik Meeran would approach him with a complaint and he should proceed with the complaint on receipt thereof. After receiving the complaint from the said M.Sheik Meeran on 30.12.2018, he found that one Rathinakumar had received 25 pounds of jewels from the complainant and he has not chosen to return the same. When the said Rathinakumar was enquired about it, he had threatened the M.Sheik Meeran with dire consequences. The occurrence is said to have taken place in Tirunelveli New Bus Stand.

6. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that after preliminary enquiry, the said Rathinakumar was brought to the office on 03.01.2019 and after enquiry, it was found that such an allegation was absolutely false with a cooked up story. It was further found that the said Rathinakumar had brought two electronic speakers from Malaysia which contained 3 kg. of gold ornaments and without handing over the same to the concerned person, he had retained it with himself. It is further alleged by the petitioner that all these facts were known to one Additional Director General of Police and he had requested him to find out the jewels on the basis of the complaint. The petitioner is said to have entertained doubt about the genuineness of the statement of Rathinakumar and M.Sheik Meeran and both of them were directed to appear for further enquiry in his office on 05.01.2019.

7. It is further alleged that on 05.01.2019, the petitioner is said to have received a call fro