Under Article 226, High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings; interference only if punishment shocks conscience or decision-making process is flawed.

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he had joined the service as Police Constable, Grade-II, through the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board on 16.04.1997; that he was upgraded to the post of Grade- I Police Constable in the year 2007 and further, promoted as Head Constable in the year 2013.

3. The petitioner contended that based on the complaint made by one Parimala on 17.04.2011, a police complaint was registered against him and further, on the basis of a motivated petition dated 19.04.2011, filed against him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated; that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 16.08.2012, containing two articles of charge; that despite giving explanation, the enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges “as proved”; and that on the basis of the enquiry report, the third respondent issued proceedings dated 16.08.2013, removing the petitioner from service.

4. The petitioner further contended that aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment awarded to him of removal from service, he had filed an appeal to the second respondent on 27.08.2013 and the second respondent, by his order dated 16.09.2013, dismissed the appeal.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dismissing the appeal filed by him, he had filed review before the first respondent on 26.11.2013; that on the first respondent not disposing of the aforesaid review, he had approached this Court by filing writ petition vide W.P.No.4858 of 2014 and on this Court disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, vide order 31.05.2018, directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal/review within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the first respondent passed order thereafter on 04.08.2018, rejecting the petition filed by him, seeking review of the order to the third respondent in visiting him with penalty as removal from service, as confirmed by the second respondent in rejecting the appeal.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the first respondent confirming the orders of the second respondent and third respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

7. Counter affidavit on behalf of the third respondent is filed.

8. The third respondent, by the counter affidavit, contended that based on the complaint submitted by one Ms.Parimala stating that the petitioner represented to her that he was a divorcee and on the pretext of marrying her, lead a family life with her in Raj Bhavan Police Quarters at Door No.7, N-Block, for a period of 10 months and the complainant further stated that she became pregnant; that the petitioner took her to a Doctor to abort the foetus; and that based on the aforesaid complaint, orders were issued to the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct preliminary enquiry; and that the said Deputy Superintendent of Police, after conducting enquiry, found that the allegations made by the complainant are true.

9. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that based on the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Udhagamandalam, on the complaint lodged by Ms.Parimala, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, for the following delinquencies:-

(i) The delinquent Head Constable Tr.Rajkumar was leading a family life with one Parimala in Rajbhavan Police Quarters, N-Block, Door No.7 for a period of 10 months by making her believe that he was a divorcee and he would marry her.

(ii) The delinquent Head Constable Tr.Rajkumar made Ms.Parimala pregnant even though his legally wedded wife is alive and took her to Doctor to abort the foetus.

10. The respondent, by the counter affidavit, further contended that on the petitioner being issued