IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.40509 of 2025 and

WMP.no.45464 of 2025

A.Periyasamy ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.THE STATE OF TAMILNADU,

REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT,

SECRETARIAT, FORT ST GEORGE, CHENNAI 600 009

2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

TAMIL NADU POLICE DEPARTMENT,

MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004

3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU

4.THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT,

KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU ... Respondents

PRAYER:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records order issued by the 4th respondent in GO. No (2D) No 279 dated

05.11.2020, quash the same and concerned to direct the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondent to reinstate with his consequences benefits to forthwith pass action in accordance with law and in the light of the petitioner’s final explanation and the evidence on records For Petitioner : Mr.V.T.Narendiran For Respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order issued by the 4th respondent in GO. No (2D) No 279 dated 05.11.2020, thereby imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had joined in the Tamil Nadu Police Department as Grade-II Police Constable on 01.03.2005. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Grade-I Police Constable. While being so, when the petitioner was serving at Choonampet Police Station between 28.12.2007 and 11.08.2009, on 12.02.2008, the petitioner and others conducted raid to prohibit certain persons including one, Nagalingam from selling illicit liquor. Those persons were arrested and remanded to judicial custody in pursuant to registration of FIR in crime No.79 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 4(i)(i) and 4(1-A) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. Thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody. While the said Nagalingam was in prison, he died due to injury sustained by him. Therefore, the petitioner was issued charge memo under Rule 3(b) of Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules alleging that the petitioner failed to follow proper detention procedure and misconduct under Rule 24(i) of the Conduct Rules, 1964. The petitioner was charged as follows:

3. After conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer found that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved. However, the disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued show cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted explanation. Without being satisfied with the same, the petitioner was imposed with punishment of compulsory retirement for the proven charges by an order dated 05.11.2020, against which this writ petition has been filed.

4. However, as to the exercise of judicial review, in the judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh in Civil Appeal Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 dated 22.03.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:

“17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re- appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court w