WP/25326/2023 of M.JAYAPRAKASH Vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT on 13 October 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders impugned dated 30.08.2017, 04.01.2018, 31.05.2018 and 2012.2022, whereby the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner was confirmed and his mercy petition was rejected.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner entered into service as a Grade-II Police Constable through Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board on 01.03.2008. In the meanwhile, the marriage proposal was arranged between the petitioner and one Durga and the marriage date was fixed on 02.06.2014. In the meantime, the deceased Durga, consumed rat poison and despite treatment died on 06.06.2014.

Thereafter, a complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased. Pursuant to which, First Information Report came to be registered as Crime No. 158 of 2014. Subsequently, a charge memorandum was issued against the petitioner on 18.01.2015, which reads as follows:-

3. Pursuant to the charge memo, an enquiry was conducted. On the side of the prosecution, three witnesses were examined. After issuance of the charge memorandum and receipt of the petitioner’s explanation, the enquiry officer was appointed. Before the Enquiry Officer, the father of the deceased and two departmental witnesses were examined. The enquiry officer has given a positive finding. Based on the said finding, the petitioner was removed from service, by order dated 30.08.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition and memorial petition, but both were came to be rejected. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Heard Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Illanvaludhi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental enquiry was conducted in a hurried manner and as a result, the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer is perverse. He further submitted that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is wholly disproportionate to the materials available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner draw the attention of this Court to the statement of the victim’s father namely, Mr.Gnanasekaran, wherein he had stated that his daughter Durga consumed poison on account of the alleged demand of dowry. In substance, the petitioner had abetted the victim to commit suicide.

6. To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel submitted that the departmental witness namely, Mr.Gnanasekaran, had deposed that the petitioner along with about 30 members came to their residence in connection with the marriage arrangements. Thereafter, they asked the bride’s father to come to the petitioner’s residence and made a further dowry demand of 25 sovereigns of gold. According to the Department, when the said demand was informed to the deceased, she became depressed and later on, consumed poison.

7. It is further stated by the department witness that on 29.05.2014, the petitioner also met the deceased and demanded dowry and that, on account of such demand, she took the extreme step. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that, when the deceased was found to have consumed poison and was in a serious condition since 01.6.2014, there was no explanation as to why the First Information Report was not registered immediately and the FIR was registered after the death of the victim on 06.06.2014, with the delay of 6 days. He further submitted that the investigating officer, who was examined by the department, as 2nd witness, had not at all recorded any statement from the deceased as she was not in a position to speak. The above glaring aspects clearly reflects the way in which the father of the victim has dealt with the matter.

8. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the department-respondent, the victim was really not in a position to give dying declaration. But, the very statement made by the father of the victim that, on 01.06.2014 evening they were planned to have a usual pre- wedding rituals. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even according to the department witness, there are material to say that the previous two marriage proposals of the victim was aborted. But this aspect was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority.

9. The learned counsel would also submit that there was a possibility that the victim might have died on account of some misinformation of the victim’s father. Hence, it is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding rendered by the enquiry officer does not satisfy the test of preponderance of probabilities. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the criminal case in S.C.No.105 of 2018, by which the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 16.02.2024. In the said judgment, the learned Judge had recorded that the department witness namely, Mr.Gnanasekaran has deposed before the Criminal Court that he did not know the reason as to why the deceased consumed poison.

10. Further, the victim’s mother, brother and sister also had stated that the deceased was in the depression on account of her forced 3rd marriage as she was very much interested in pursuing her studies. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the writ petition.

11. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the mere availability of an alternative possible view cannot be a reason to interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was a Police Constable and had been granted 45 days leave for the purpose of his marriage. During the said period, he had visited the residence of the deceased along with about 30 persons in connection with the marriage arrangements. Therefore, the petitioner would have been aware of the circumstances relating to the deceased and her family.

12. The contention of the petitioner that the death of the deceased was only on account of not informing about her previous two marriage proposal is merely his assumption and the same cannot be a justifiable reason. Merely because her father Mr.Gnanasekaran admitted in such a way, it will not make the finding given by the Enquiry Officer, become perverse. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that merely because the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, the said acquittal by itself will not invalidate the departmental proceedings or the finding rendered therein. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

14. It is a well-settled principle of law that the scope of judicial review is very limited. Unless the finding becomes perverse, or if the finding will not stand the test of preponderance of probabilities, only then Judicial review would arise. In order to arrive at a conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer would become perverse, an initial or threshold level of scrutiny may be undertaken.

15. In such exercise, this Court is of the view that the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer become perverse for the following reasons:-

(i) Even according to the Disciplinary Authority, on 01.06.2014, they had planned to perform the pre-wedding rituals. But, the investigating officer had deposed before the disciplinary authority that after consuming poison, the deceased was not in a position to speak and therefore, she was not in a position to give a dying declaration. Both the statements are inherently inconsistent. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the father

of the deceased had hopes for marriage and further he did not give police compliant until her death. If really there was an abatement of suicide by the petitioner, no father would give her daughter to such a diabolical person.

(ii) Furthermore, while looking into the admissions made by the victim’s father the factum of previous attempt of two marriage proposals of the victim, and later dropped, was not considered by the disciplinary authority. Here except the victim father, there are no witnesses to substantiate the charge. Infact, the victim was alive for 6 days after the alleged consumption of poison. Here, the victim did not say anything. According to the department witnesses, the victim was stable even after consumption of poison.

(iii) To the extent indicated above, in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, this Court also relies upon the admission given by the departmental witnesses in the criminal case in S.C.No.105 of 2018, wherein the petitioner was later tried on the similar set of charge relying similar set of witnesses and documents, but ended in acquittal on 16.02.2024. While arriving at the conclusion of acquittal the learned Sessions Judge has recorded, in paragraph No.24, as follows:- “But the witnesses examined in the prosecution side, who made arrangement of the marriage has not spoken anything about the demand of dowry by the accused and A1 refused to marry the PW-1’s daughter, thereby instigating her to commit suicide. More particularly PW-2 and PW-5 categorically deposed that the deceased Durga want to study further and not interested in marriage and consumed rat paste. PW-9 also deposed that her sister does not like the marriage. PW-1 father of the deceased Durga, who lodge the Ex.P1 complaint also deposed that he does not know why his daughter has consumed poison. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses, who made arrangement of the marriage of the deceased Durga with A1 has not deposed anything against the accused implicating them in the commission of offence. Hence, from the available evidence and also from the materials on record, the prosecution has failed to prove all the charges levelled against the accused.”

(iv) According to the depositions of the mother (PW-2), brother(PW-5) and sister (PW-9), before the Criminal Court, the deceased was depressed on account of the forced marriage, as she was very much interested in pursuing her studies. Further, looking at the statement of Gnanasekaran, the father of the deceased, who is the star witness in the disciplinary proceedings, he depose that he did not know the reason as to why the deceased had consumed poison.

(v) If we look at the above statement given before the Criminal Court, in the backdrop of the finding rendered herein above, it would vindicate that the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer is not sustainable. As a result of which, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the subsequent orders rejecting the mercy petition are liable to be interfered with.

16. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.08.2017, 04.01.2018, 31.05.2018 and 20.12.2022 are hereby quashed.

The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The period of dismissal shall be taken into account for the purpose of continuity of service, sans any monetary benefits. No order as to costs. 17-09-2026 ari Index:yes Internet:yes Speaking order Neutral citation:yes To

1. The Secretary to Government,Home Department,Fort St. George,,Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Director General of Police,Mylapore,Chennai - 600 004.

3. The Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai Police, EVK Sampath Road, Veppery, Chennai-600 007.

4. The Joint Commissioner of Police,North Chennai, Madhavaram, Chennai-60. C.KUMARAPPAN, J. ari

W.P.No. 25326 of 2023 17.09.2026