BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.A.(MD)No.1190 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9158 of 2024

1.The Secretary, Home Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Chennai.

2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dindigul Range, Dindigul.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. ... Appellants -vs-

M.Nazir Hussain ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent Act, praying to praying to allow this Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.9971 of 2023 dated 26.09.2023.

For Appellants : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.G.Karthik

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.] It is a case of compulsory retirement of a Grade – I Constable, who was found guilty in the departmental proceedings. His appeal and revision also were dismissed and the order of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority is confirmed. Challenging the same, a Writ Petition filed seeking Certiorarified Mandamus. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as below:

“To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pursuant to the order in R.C.No.068004/AP.

2(3)/2018 dated 08.08.2018 of 2^nd respondent confirming the order passed in Rc.No.AP25/A2/2017 by 3^rd respondent dated 04.07.2017 through which the order of 4^th respondent made in PR-08/F1/2016 dated 30.03.2017 was confirmed and quash the same and reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits.”

2.The learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition had thought fit that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate and therefore, quashed the impugned proceedings and remanded back to the disciplinary authority to initiate fresh proceedings and impose a proportionate punishment other than compulsory retirement and dismissal from the service.

3.The department being aggrieved, had challenged the order of the learned Single Judge on the following grounds:

1) The writ petitioner had committed offences of robbery and a misconduct unbecoming of a uniformed service personnel. Not less than compulsory retirement could be a proportionate punishment for the said misconduct. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate needs to be interfered.

2) The charge of involving in the snatching of cell phone at knife point along his co-accused having been found proved in the departmental enquiry, the learned Single Judge ought not to have remanded back the matter for the disciplinary authority to initiate fresh proceedings. Such an event will occur only if there is gross violation of procedure.

4.Contrary to the above submission, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner / respondent submitted that the finding of the authority as well as appellate authority and the revisional authority without proper discussion of the facts and bereft of reasoning needs to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the respondent would particularly submit that the criminal trial which was pending at the time of passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement and on the date of dismissal of the revision petition ultimately ended in acquittal. The change in circumstances warrants fresh consideration of the facts. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.

5.We gave our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and the records placed before us.

6.The first respondent herein been appointed as Grade-II Constable on 09.06.1993. On the date of occurrence, he was working as Grade – I PC at Thenkarai Police Station, Periyakulam. The criminal case in Crime No.1005 of 2015 registered by the Dindigul Town North Police Station for offences under Section 387 and 506 (ii) of IPC has emana