Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 84596
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Dhandapani, N. Dilip Kumar, JJ
Pandi – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Madurai Range Madurai – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.714 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.M. Mohamed Ashfalk, A. Aishwarya Sandaleena
For the Respondents: M. Mahaboob Athiff
Departmental proceedings are independent of criminal trials; acquittal in the latter does not invalidate the former, and the absence of the complainant's testimony does not vitiate an enquiry if other evidence proves misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Departmental Enquiry - Non-examination of Complainant - Non-examination of the complainant does not automatically vitiate disciplinary proceedings if other materials and circumstantial evidence on record are sufficient to establish the alleged misconduct. (Para 11)
(B) Departmental vs Criminal Proceedings - Independence of Proceedings - Acquittal in a criminal case does not render departmental proceedings unsustainable, as they are independently maintainable for determining service misconduct. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether the non-examination of the complainant and acquittal in a criminal case would vitiate the departmental proceedings and the resulting punishment.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by
M.DHANDAPANI.J.)
This Intra Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 16.08.2018 passed in W.P.(MD) No.6123 of 2011.
2.It is the case of the appellant that the appellant has joined the service in the year 1972 as Grade-II Police Constable and he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1998. He attained the age of superannuation in the year 2006.
3.Due to the wordy quarrel between the family of the appellant and one Meenakshi, a case and counter case have been registered against each each of them including the appellant. The complaint lodged by the mother- in-law of the appellant against the said Meenakshi was closed as 'Mistake of fact, whereas, the complaint given by the said Meenakshi was registered as Crime No.185 of 2000 by the Alanganallur Police Station and the same has also been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, in CC.No.200 of 2008.
4.After contest, the appellant was acquitted from all the charges. However, for the very same set of facts, the appellant was charged u/r 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955, in Punishment Roll No.41/2000 and imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect by the Department. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order dated 04.06.2009, which was also confirmed by the appellate authority on 04.08.2009. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P.(MD) No.6123 of 2011 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 16.08.2018 had dismissed the said writ petition. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterating all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal would submit that the enquiry report, which forms the basis of the proceedings, was submitted without examining the complainant. In the absence of examination of the complainant, the enquiry could not have been treated as complete, particularly when the allegations made in the complaint were required to be verified and established in accordance with the applicable procedure. He would further submit that the failure to examine the complainant and the consequential infirmity in the enquiry report go to the root of the matter and materially affect the validity of the impugned proceedings. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.
6.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted after a detailed enquiry, in which the charges levelled against the appellant were duly considered. Upon considering the materials available on record, the competent authority imposed only a lesser punishment on the appellant. The said order of punishment was thereafter duly considered and confirmed by the appellate authority and the same was also upheld by the learned Single Judge.
7.It is further submitted that though the complainant was not examined, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence available on record to establish the misconduct alleged against the appellant. The disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the learned Single Judge have concurrently considered the materials and arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was liable for punishment. Therefore, there is no justification for interfering with the impugned order. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
8.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9.Admittedly, the facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the disciplinary proceedings as against the appellant were conducted pursuant to a detailed enquiry, wherein the charges levelled against the appellant were considered on the basis of the materials placed before the Enquiry Officer.
10.Upon consideration of the materials available on record, the disciplinary authority imposed only a lesser punishment on the appellant, which was thereafter duly considered and confirmed by
