WP/29309/2024 of K.KATHIRESAN Vs THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE on 15 October 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order of dismissal dated 29.12.2023 passed by the second respondent and the consequential order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the second respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 herein to reinstate the petitioner as Grade-I Police Constable in E-2 Police Station, Thally Village and Post, Dhenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, with all consequential and monetary benefits.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner is a Grade-I Police Constable attached to E-2 Police Station, Thally Village and Post, Dhenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District. On 08.03.2021, at about 7.30 a.m., the petitioner intercepted a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-40-Q-1677. On interception, he found that the vehicle was carrying Gutka products. Even after knowing about the transportation of the contraband, instead of informing the Police Station, he allegedly negotiated with the driver for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, on the promise of allowing the vehicle to leave without registering an FIR. Since the Department came to know about such delinquency of the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and, ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The said order was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority, challenging which the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the disciplinary proceedings. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel that the witnesses relied upon by the Department have categorically stated that they did not know the petitioner and that they had not seen the petitioner at the scene of occurrence. It is also his contention that, though there are contradictory versions in the evidence, the disciplinary authority erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the charges were proved and ultimately made the petitioner a scapegoat.

4.1. He would further submit that, though initially allegations were levelled against various levels of officers, ranging from the DSP to the Constables, all of them were relieved by wrongly fixing the entire responsibility and delinquency upon the petitioner. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner is living a differently abled daughter and, in any event, the punishment imposed upon him is shockingly disproportionate. Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.

5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader and would contend that the disciplinary authority has followed all due procedures and has complied with the principles of natural justice in their fullest spirit. After considering the positive report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. He would also contend that the petitioner had previously been imposed with punishments on different dates for various delinquencies. Though the petitioner relies upon the alleged contradictions in the evidence, in fact, there are no material contradictions and the driver of the subject vehicle which transported the contraband and the person who brought the sum of Rs.2 lakhs have deposed before the disciplinary authority about the nature of the occurrence.

5.1. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that, no doubt, there are certain admissions in favour of the petitioner, but such admissions would, in no way, take away the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority, as the major portion of the chief-examination was not at all challenged by the petitioner. Apart from the deposition of PW.1 and PW.2, namely, the driver and the person who brought the bribe amount, PW.3 and PW.4 were also examined, who had reached the scene of occurrence on the information given by the petitioner so as to negotiate with the owner of the contraband. Their evidence also stands against the petitioner. He would further contend that an FIR was also registered under the relevant provisions of the IPC against the peddler of the contraband. Therefore, he would contend that the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority is based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, and that the same cannot be faulted with and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. It is also the case of the respondents that, this being a case involving corrupt practice, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be held to be disproportionate. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

7. The charge against the petitioner is that, though he intercepted the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-40-Q-1677, an Eicher vehicle, which was transporting banned tobacco products, instead of registering an FIR, he negotiated with the persons concerned and received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, thereby indulging in conduct unbecoming of a police personnel and causing damage to the image of the Police Force. In order to substantiate the charge, the Department relied upon 14 witnesses and 17 documents. Out of the 14 witnesses, PW.1 and PW.2 are the star witnesses.

8. Admittedly, PW.1 was the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-40-Q-1677, with whom the petitioner allegedly negotiated for a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs, and PW.2 is the person who brought the sum of Rs.2 lakhs on the instructions of the owner of PW.1. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon certain admissions made by them during cross-examination, would contend that, since the witnesses had not seen the petitioner at the scene of occurrence and had seen him for the first time before the DSP's Office, there was no possibility of the petitioner having received the bribe.

9. At the same time, PW.3 and PW.4 had seen the petitioner near Daba Hotel and would further depose that they arrived at the place to which the petitioner had asked them to come and, on arrival, after coming to know about the request made by the petitioner to negotiate with the owner of the Eicher lorry for the payment of the bribe, they did not want to involve themselves in such an act and left the place. This portion of their evidence remains unchallenged. Therefore, merely because PW.1 and PW.2, during cross- examination, made certain admissions to the effect that they had not seen the petitioner at the scene of occurrence, by itself, will not render the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority an impossible conclusion, particularly when PW.1 and PW.2 had spoken about the presence and involvement of the petitioner during their chief-examination.

10. Furthermore, the petitioner has nowhere stated that he had not seen the Eicher vehicle or that he had not spoken with PW.1 and PW.2. It is pertinent to mention that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was recovered from PW.2. Therefore, if the entire evidence adduced by the Department is read harmoniously and conjointly, it would clearly establish that the finding of the Enquiry Officer, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority, is a possible and probable finding.

11. Before we delve into the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate to set out the contours of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, this Court would like to refer to the following judgments:-

(i) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749

(ii) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 61.

(iii) The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478. Through the above judgements, the following principles would emerge:-

(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But such power is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and the compliance of natural justice.

(ii) The power of judicial review is not like an appellate remedy to substitute its own finding, unless the findings of the Original Authority and Appellate Authority is perverse and without evidence.

(iii) The High Court had no jurisdiction to review the penalty, unless the same is shockingly disproportionate.

(iv) The mere possibility to arrive at yet another finding,

cannot be a reason to substitute the finding of the disciplinary Authority.

(v) The judicial review is meant only to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.

(vi) While exercising the power of judicial review, so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the original authority, the same has to be sustained.

12. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, though the petitioner has raised certain defences, as already held, such defences would, in no way, render the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority perverse or unsustainable. Further, there is abundant evidence to establish the attempt made by the petitioner to arrange a person to negotiate with the owner of the contraband and to negotiate with PW.1 and PW.2, notwithstanding their denial during cross-examination that they had not seen the petitioner at the place of occurrence. The evidence of the Department witnesses with regard to the arrival of PW.1 and PW.2 at the scene of occurrence along with the money and the presence of the petitioner at the said place would make it abundantly clear that the findings of the disciplinary authority are based on the available evidence and are in accordance with law.

13. Though the petitioner has argued the matter vigorously, this Court could not find any material warranting deviation from the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority, the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority. Once the charge is held to be proved and when the charge relates to a corrupt practice committed by a Police Constable, any punishment lesser than dismissal from service cannot be held to be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Therefore, even with regard to the quantum of punishment, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference, as the punishment imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the charges.

14. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To

1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police O/o The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, (Salem Range), Salem and District-636 456.

2. The District Superintendent of Police O/o.The District Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri Town and Taluk, Krishnagiri District-635 001.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanikottai Sub Division, Dhenkanikottai Town and Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Hosur Sub Division), Hosur Town and Taluk, Krishnagiri District-635 109.

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bargur Sub Division, Bargur Town and Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

6. The Circle Inspector Police (Law and Order) E-1 Denkanikottai Police Station, Dhenkanikottai Town and Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

7. The Inspector of Police (Law and Order) E-2 Police Station, Thally Village and Post, Dhenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 29309 of 2024 15-10-2026