##PAGE1##

WP No. 31192 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

WP No. 31192 of 2015

and

MP No.1 of 2015

V.Ramamurthy

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Director General of Police

Tamil Nadu, Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-4.

2. The Commissioner of Police,

Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai-07.

3. The Joint Commissioner of

Police, Traffic (South), Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the

issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the

proceedings of the First Respondent in Rc.No.33105/AP.3(2)/2015 dated

25.07.2015 confirming the order passed by the Second Respondent in

P.R.No.37/Tr.PR/2012 RC No.45/8677/PR.V/ CPO/2013 dated 12.05.2014

modifying the order passed by the Third Respondent in P.R.No.37/Tr.PR/2012

TZO No.657/2012 dated 21.09.2012 and quash the said order and direct the

Respondents to grant him all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

__________

Page1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 01:39:43 pm )

WP No. 31192 of 2015

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Manojkumar

For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Ganesan, Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the first respondent in

Rc.No.33105/AP.3(2)/2015 dated 25.07.2015, confirming the order passed by the

second respondent in P.R.No.37/Tr.PR/2012, RC No.45/8677/PR.V/CPO/2013

dated 12.05.2014, which modified the order passed by the third respondent in

P.R.No.37/Tr.PR/2012, TZO No.657/2012 dated 21.09.2012. The petitioner

further seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him all consequential benefits.

2. The second respondent, by order dated 12.05.2014, modified the

punishment imposed on the petitioner from reduction of pay by two stages for two

years with cumulative effect on future increments, imposed for a grave offence, to

postponement of increment for two years, which would operate on

future increments.

3. The petitioner, while serving as a Police Constable, was issued with a

charge memo dated 03.06.2012, along with the statement of imputations of

misconduct and a list of witnesses and documents proposed to be relied upon.

__________

Page2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 01:39:43 pm )

WP No. 31192 of 2015

4. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice calling upon him to

explain as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated. In response, the

petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. As the Disciplinary

Authority was not satisfied with the explanation, an Inquiry Officer was

appointed to conduct a departmental enquiry. Upon completion of the enquiry, the

Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges against the

petitioner stood proved.

5. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the third respondent passed an order

imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two

years with cumulative effect on future increments. The said order was challenged

by the petitioner in appeal before the second respondent, who modified the

punishment. The modified order was thereafter confirmed by the first respondent

in revision. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no cogent

evidence to substantiate the charges against the petitioner, except for the self-

serving statement of the complainant. He further contended that the petitioner,

being a Police Constable, had no authority to issue a receipt for the fine collected,

as such authority vested exclusively with the Sub-Inspector. It was further

submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, without issuing a second show-cause

notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the enquiry report,

__________

Page3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/02/2026 01:39:43 pm )

WP No. 31192 of 2015

proceeded to pass the impugned order. Such action, it was ar