Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J
K.Tamilmani – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Police (AR), Greater Chennai City Police – Respondent
WP No.28323 of 2015 | MP.No.1 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Advocate for Mr.M.Muthappan
For the Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yashwanth Additional Government Pleader
The lack of proper discussion on key evidence in disciplinary proceedings can invalidate the dismissal of a public servant.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the orders of dismissal and subsequent confirmation by the authorities. The Petitioner was dismissed based on charges of misconduct and harbouring offenders in a criminal case. Facts of the Case: The Petitioner, a former Police Constable, claimed wrongful dismissal after being acquitted of criminal charges.
Findings of Court:
The Court found insufficient discussion of key evidence in the inquiry and quashed the dismissal, allowing partial relief with lesser punishment.
Issues: The main issues were whether the disciplinary process was flawed and if the delay in appeal was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court noted that proper discussion of exculpatory evidence in disciplinary matters is essential and failures could invalidate proceedings.
Result: The Writ Petition is partly allowed to the extent that the writ petitioner shall be given lesser punishment on par with the co-accused viz., Rajkumar without backwages. No costs.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in PR No.308/2(2)/2005 dated 24.07.08 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings C.No.132/56581/PR-II (2)/2013 dated 07.08.13 and by the 3rd respondent in RC No.166210/APIII(2)/2013 dated 30.03.15 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Advocate for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yashwanth Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Petition has been filed to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in PR No.308/2(2)/2005 dated 24.07.08 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings C.No.132/56581/PR-II (2)/2013 dated 07.08.13 and by the 3rd respondent in RC No.166210/APIII(2)/2013 dated 30.03.15 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2.The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The Petitioner herein was appointed as Grade II Police Constable in April
1997. He was implicated as accused (A8) in Crime No.123/2005, u/s.341, 392 & 302 of IPC on the file of the Mangalam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District, on the allegation of providing shelter to the offenders who have been involved in the said crime. Consequently, he was arrested on 02.05.2005 and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner was suspended from service by the Additional Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, by order dated 05.05.20025. Thereupon, departmental proceedings were initiated against him, issuing a charge memo u/r 3(b) of TNPSS (D & A) Rules in PR No.308 PR 2(2)/2005 dated 14.10.2005, accusing for unauthorised absent on 01.05.2005 at 06.45 am and unlawful harbouring accused involved in murder and robbery case, at his friend’s residence i.e., police quarters. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that both charges were proved. Though the petitioner submitted his representation against the enquiry report within time, the disciplinary authority by order dated 24.07.2008 dismissed him from service, stating that no such representation was filed by the petitioner. The Sessions Court in S.C.No.7 of 2008 acquitted him on 28.02.2013, holding that there was no evidence of harbouring. Unfortunately, his appeal was rejected by the Commissioner of Police on 07.08.2013, as time barred and his review was also dismissed by the Director General of Police on 30.03.2015. Hence this Petition.
3.The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner by referring the charges framed against the petitioner pointed out that during the examination the defence witnesses viz., Mr.Kalaiselvan (DW1) and Rajkumar (DW2), where DW2 have denied that he had provided shelter in his residence to the accused persons at No.10, E Block, Thiruvottiyur Police Quarters on 29.04.2005 and 30.04.2005. However, the Enquiry Officer held that both the charges stood proved against the writ petitioner.
4.He further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be put against the petitioner, since the appeal was preferred only after he was acquitted by the Sessions Court. Therefore, such delay should not prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.
5.He further submitted that the petitioner’s co-delinquent, Rajkumar, who was also charged with similar charges such as harbouring and sheltering the accused in the criminal case, was acquitted by the trial Court. In regard to that, he pointed out that said Rajkumar was given lesser punishment and reinstated into service by relying upon the order of modification of punishment issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in Rc.No.274/148536/PR-II(2)/2012, dated
07.05.2014. The rel
