IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

and

W.M.P.No.31278 of 2016

S.Elumalai

H.C.885/VL ... Petitioner

vs.

1. The Director General of Police

Department of Police Mylapore, Chennai-4.

2. The Deputy Inspector of General of Police

Villupuram Range

Villupuram.

3. The Superintendent of Police

Villupuram District

Villupuram.

4. The Inspector of Police

Nallanpillaipetral Police Station

Gingee Taluk

Villupuram District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking

a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order D.O.No.130/2014 C.No.D1/PR.103/2012 dated 21.01.2014 of the third respondent herein, quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd

respondent to promote the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Murugesan For Respondents : Dr.S.Suriya Additional Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 21.01.2014 bearing reference D.O.No.130/2014 C.No.D1/PR.103/2012 passed by the third respondent. By the said order, the petitioner, while working as a Head Constable, was awarded the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

2. The petitioner, while working as a Head Constable, was issued a charge memo containing three charges, which read as follows;

“(1) As a member of the police force, consuming alcohol and behaving in a manner unworthy of the dignity of the department is an offence that undermines the discipline expected of respected personnel and damages the reputation of the police in the eyes of the general public. Such misconduct in public places brings disrepute to the police department;

(2) Being a Head Constable who is aware of legal provisions, on 26.06.2011, along with your friend Bhaskaran, S/o.Kalvarayan, from Sirukadambur and with a gange of 10 people, you allegedly blocked Parthiban (2), S/o. Balu of Naduthittu, Kadambur Colony, Senji and Saravanan, S/o.Subramani, near Sri Mariamman Temple on Singavaram Road at around 6.00 p.m., attacked them with deadly weapons such as iron pipes and cycle chains, saying “How dare you speak against the Mayilam Police?” and even broke a soda bottle and attempted to stab them while also instigating your associates to attack. Your unlawful actions have caused serious damage to the public image of the Police Department. This amounts to grave and condemnable misconduct.

(3) While intoxicated, you engaged in quarrels and assaults the public, provoking violence. Due to these actions, criminal case No.336/11 under Sections 294, 323, 506(ii) IPC, and also under Sections 147, 148 IPC, has been registered at the Senji Police Station. Such behaviour is a serious offence amounting to indiscipline and unbecoming of a police officer.”

3. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, a departmental enquiry was initiated. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that Charges 1 and 3 were not proved; however, Charge 2 was held to be partly proved. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted a detailed reply stating that, with respect to Charge 2, the complainant had withdrawn the complaint and that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation of assault. Despite this, the third respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. K. M. Murugesan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the complainant had withdrawn the complaint, there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner had assaulted the complainant in the TASMAC premises. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that Charge 2 was partly proved is unsustainable. He further submitted that the third respondent, who is the Disciplinary Authority, failed to consider t