Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RSUBRAMANIAN, K.SURENDER, JJ
The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District – Appellant
Versus
M.Manibalan – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 209 of 2024
For the Appellant: Mr.P.Kumaresan, Mr.P.Anandha Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr.T.Thirumoorthi, Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan
Disciplinary authorities can impose lesser penalties even if an inquiry concluded wrongdoing; removal from service is disproportionate for short unauthorized absence.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Discipline & Appeal Rules - Rule 2 and Rule 3 - The court held that unauthorized absence from duty is not sufficient for a major penalty like removal from service, especially considering the length of service of the employee; a lesser penalty would suffice. (Paras 6 and 8)
(B) Proportionality - It was determined that the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate, warranting reevaluation. (Paras 4, 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
The employee was removed for unauthorized absence and acquitted of a criminal charge. The learned Single Judge quashed the removal and suggested a lesser penalty.
Findings of Court:
Stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect was deemed appropriate.
Issues: The main issue was the proportionality of the punishment given the employee's absence length.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the disciplinary authority had discretion to impose a lesser punishment even after conducting an inquiry; the major penalty was disproportionate.
Result: The Writ Appeal is disposed of imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charges against employee and outcomes of the inquiry. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the scope and discretion of disciplinary authority. (Para 4) |
| 3. assessment of the proportionality of the punishment. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final decision on the imposed penalty. (Para 8) |
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER Writ Appeal No. 209 of 2024 and CMP No.1230 of 2024
1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
2. The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Kailasapuram, Mylapore, Chennai 600 005. ... Appellants Vs.
M.Manibalan ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in WP No.17366 of 2018 dated 14.06.2022. For Appellant : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Addl. Advocate General Asst. By Mr.P.Anandha Kumar, Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.T.Thirumoorthi For Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the punishment of removal from service and remitting the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to reduce the punishment, the State is on Appeal.
2. The respondent who was working as a Grade II Police Constable was Charge sheeted for two delinquencies viz. unauthorized absence from duty for 21 days and involvement in a Criminal Case. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and he concluded that both the charges have been proved. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the punishment of removal from service was imposed.
3. Upon challenge, the learned Single Judge concluded that, as far as the second charge is concerned, it was covered by the finding of the Criminal Court where the delinquent employee was acquitted. As far as the first charge viz. unauthorised absence, the learned Single Judge felt that though it was held to be proved punishment of removal from service for the delinquency is shockingly disproportionate. On the said conclusion, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ petition, quashed the punishment and remitted the matter to the Authorities for imposition of a lesser punishment.
4. Mr.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that there is no discretion left with the Disciplinary Authority in terms of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Discipline & Appeal Rules. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the effect of Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Discipline & Appeal Rules is that the only punishments mentioned in Clauses (d), (h), (i) and (j) of Rule 2 could be imposed, if the Department conducts an enquiry. We are unable to sustain the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General.
5. Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Discipline &
Appeal Rules, sets out the penalties that could be imposed on any member of the service. Rule 3 sets out the procedure to be followed if a minor penalty that is penalties mentioned in Clauses (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) of Rule 2 are to be imposed and Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Discipline & Appeal Rules sets out the procedure to be followed if the Disciplinary Authority proposes to impose a major penalty that is penalty specified with Clauses (d), (h), (i) and (j) of Rule 2. These Rules are akin to Rule 17(a) and 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. A minor penalty is proposed to be imposed, the procedure for conducting an enquiry can be weighed. Merely because an enquiry has been conducted, it does not mean that only the penalties that are set out in Clauses (d), (h), (i) and (j) of Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Discipline & Appeal Rules could be imposed. Even after conducting an enquiry depending upon the nature of the delinquency, it will be open
