BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.03.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY R.Venkatesan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, St.George Fort, Chennai.

2. The Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai 28.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the punishment awarded by the first respondent in his proceedings G.O.No.284 dated 08.08.2011 and quash the same as illegal and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pay all the consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the punishment awarded by the first respondent in his proceedings G.O.No.284 dated 08.08.2011 and quash the same as illegal and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pay all the consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner joined service as a Grade II Police Constable on

09.06.1993 and was promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 09.06.2003. He was entitled to further promotion as Head Constable. However, the same was denied due to the present charge memo, which resulted in the punishment of withholding increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner had rendered 20 years of service without any complaint. The third respondent issued a charge memo and appointed the fourth respondent as the Enquiry Officer. The charge against the petitioner was that he had created false fuel bills as if petrol had been used for a vehicle, thereby obtaining excess amounts through fabricated bills. The fourth respondent conducted an enquiry and directed the petitioner to submit an explanation dated 20.03.2007. On 31.08.2009, the fourth respondent conducted the enquiry without enquiring the petitioner and without perusing the documents, has come to the conclusion that the charge has been proved. The first respondent without considering the petitioner’s explanation, imposed the punishment of withholding increment for one year without cumulative effect.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the charge against the petitioner is that the Government Jeep No.TN 63 G 156 was operating in Chennai, whereas the petitioner claimed that the said vehicle was operating in Sivagangai and that diesel had been filled during the period from 21.09.2001 to March 2002. There is an allegation of misappropriation of the government funds. Though the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry, the charge was not properly proved. If the petitioner had been given an opportunity to address the discrepancies, he would have clarified the same. However, the Enquiry Officer further states that the dates in the bills did not coincide with the dates on which the petitioner claimed to have filled fuel and concluded against him. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“gpioahsh; flej; 27.09.01 Kjy; khhr; ; 2002 tiuapyhd fhyjj; py; TN 63 G 0156 gi; g nrdi; dapy; Xlb; rptfqi; f khtll; k; kwW; k; mUfpy; css; khtll; qf; spy; Xlb; ajhf nghaa; hd vhn; ghUs; tpwg; id urPJ Nghdw; Mtzqf; is jhahhpjJ; > vhpnghUs; tpwg; id epiyaqf; spy; ngww; Fww; rr; hlL; Koikaha epUgpff; gltpyi; y vdw; hYk; gpioahsh; nglN; uhy; gqf; ; vhpnghUs; tpwg; id urPJfisg; ngwW; mbff; li; l NjjpfF; khWglL; nttN; tW Njjpfspy; urPJfspy; Fwpgg; plL; thfd ilhpapy; vOjp ifnahgg; k; nraJ; ss; hh.; JpUgG; tdk; kPdhlr; p nglN; uhy; gqf; ; Bryg; pbjj; J Nghy NjjpNghlhky; gpyf; isg; ngwW; ss; hh.; ,ej; KiwNflb; wF; gpioahsNu nghWgG; MfNt vhpnghUs; urPJfspy; Njjp khww; k; nraj; Fww; k