Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J
S. Devarajan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
The above writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the proceedings issued by the third respondent in C.No.D1/PR.11/2010, dated 27.07.2013, and the order passed in appeal by the second respondent in RC.No.167282/Con.3(1)/2008, dated 15.02.2006, and to quash the same, with a consequential direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, and monetary benefits, on par with his batchmates.
2. The chequered history of the case is as follows:
(i) The petitioner herein was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police at Vellode Police Station from 21.01.2005 to 17.05.2005. On 12.05.2005, one Shanmugam @ Sakthi, S/o. Arumugam, lodged a complaint at Vellode Police Station against one Shanmugavel and one Vignesh. The complaint was registered as Vellode Police Station Crime No.86/2005 under Section 294(b) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. The petitioner registered the case, arrested the accused, and subsequently released them on bail.
(ii) It was later alleged that the petitioner abducted Mahalakshmi, W/o. Shanmugavel (the accused in Crime No.86/2005), by trespassing into her residence on the night of 1
Departmental disciplinary findings can sustain charges independently of criminal acquittal, emphasizing the distinct standards applicable to misconduct in public service.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural rules and principles of natural justice; judicial review does not extend to re-evaluating evidence unless there are violations of these principles.
Disciplinary findings must be based on legally admissible evidence; lack of evidence warrants judicial intervention under Article 226.
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.
The dismissal of a police officer was quashed due to procedural irregularities in the inquiry process, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with established rules.
Disciplinary action against government employees must comply with statutory provisions, and jurisdictional authority must be respected; lack of proper procedure and reasoning renders proceedings void....
The admissibility of evidence from a criminal trial in a departmental proceeding, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof required in a departmental proceeding.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
