WP/33619/2023 of S.SOUNDRAPANDIAN Vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU on 6 October 2026

Order

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the 1st respondent.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was appointed as Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Service at Madurai District in the year 1993. In the meanwhile, an occurrence took place on 26.10.2012 at about 11.00 a.m. and, in pursuance of the said occurrence, the petitioner was suspended from service on 06.11.2012 and thereafter, a charge memorandum was issued on 09.01.2013. After receiving the explanation from the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 29.01.2013 and, after conducting an enquiry, the 5th respondent passed a final order on 10.04.2013, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent and the appeal also came to be dismissed on 30.06.2013. Thereafter, when he filed an appeal before the 4th respondent and a review petition before the 1st respondent, all the authorities have confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, even according to the charge memorandum, he had assaulted one Poobalan and taken Rs.500/- from his pocket. According to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, subsequently, the said Poobalan had addressed a letter to the Police, DIG, on 08.07.2013, contending that though a certain occurrence took place, it was not as stated in the complaint, but there was a dispute between Poobalan and his master. While so, the petitioner had intervened and resolved the dispute and, in such circumstances, he had slapped him.

3.1. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such statement of Poobalan was not at all considered by the authorities concerned. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got two daughters and, for the charge, the removal from service is disproportionate and unconvincing. Hence, he prays to interfere with the same.

4. Per contra, the said contention was totally objected to by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5 and would contend that the charge is not a mere intervention in the dispute between two persons; on the other hand, it is the case that the petitioner entered into a TASMAC bar where one Poobalan was serving as cashier, demanded liquor at free of cost. Since Poobalan refused to do so, he assaulted Poobalan and took Rs.500/- from his pocket and caused injuries to him. The learned Government Advocate would contend that, in such a serious occurrence, if the petitioner is dealt with lightly, it would send wrong signals to others who are serving in the uniformed service and, hence, would contend that, having the charge proved, the punishment imposed on him is proportionate to the gravity of the charges. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the 7th respondent would contend that, subsequent to the occurrence, the petitioner had sought apology from him and they resolved themselves and, therefore, he has nothing to say in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

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

7. While looking into the charge, the petitioner entered into a TASMAC bar and demanded liquor at free of cost and, on refusal to give the liquor, he assaulted the employee of the TASMAC shop and took Rs.500/- from his pocket. In order to prove the above charges, the department relied upon the injured eye witnesses and he, in categorical terms, explained about the nature of the occurrence. Though the petitioner relied upon the statement of the injured witness Poobalan and his acceptance of apology, this Court is of the firm view that the acceptance of apology would in no way be helpful for the petitioner to get away from the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

8. When a petitioner is serving as a police constable, he is expected to have a high degree of discipline and rectitude. In the case in hand, he not only entered into the TASMAC shop to have liquor, but on the other hand, he sought liquor at free of cost. On refusal, he assaulted the employee and took Rs.500/- from his pocket. This portion has been established through the injured eye witnesses relied upon by the disciplinary authority. Though the petitioner’ s counsel objected to the finding, he is not in a position to identify any perversity in the findings or any portion of the findings in his favour.

9. Before proceeding further, this Court would like to mention the contours of the judicial review. In B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows. The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 12 & 18 and the same read as follows:- “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. ..............

14. ...............

15. ...............

16. ................

17. ................

18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. (Emphasis supplied by this Court)

10. In Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the decision is against the natural justice, then the same can be interfered. The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 25 & 29 and the same read as follows:- “25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in

treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the Rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory Rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

26. ......

27. .......

28. ........

29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review Under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”

11. Through the above judgments, the following principles are emerging:-

(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But such power is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and to ensure 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 Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority is perverse and without evidence.

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

(iv) Since because there is a 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 departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.

12. As per the above settled principle of law, while exercising the power of judicial review, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and, on perusal of the disciplinary authority’s order, he relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, namely, the eye witnesses to the incident. According to the disciplinary authority, P.W.1/Poobalan has given a cogent narration of the incident and he has also stated that the delinquent, namely, the petitioner, came in civil dress and demanded a bottle of alcohol and, when the same was refused by Poobalan, the petitioner put his hand into the shirt pocket of Poobalan and forcibly took Rs.500/- from his pocket by tearing his shirt pocket. When such unshakeable evidence has already been deposed before the disciplinary authority, the mere acceptance of apology by him later on will in no way be helpful to the petitioner. In such view of the above factual aspect, this Court is of the firm view that the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority that the charge has been proved cannot be found fault with at this time.

13. Considering the imposition of punishment, it is a well-settled principle of law that unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, this Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, cannot interfere with the same. In the case in hand, the petitioner, being a constable and a member of the uniformed service, entering into a TASMAC shop and demanding liquor at free of cost, and also assaulting the employee for not heeding to his request, would definitely be a serious delinquency and it has to be dealt with in its proper perspective.

14. On seeing the punishment, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of removal from service, which, according to this Court, is not disproportionate but commensurate with the charge. Therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition and, accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JRS

To

1. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government Home (police Vi) Department, Government Of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Deputy Secretary Of Home Department Government Of Tamil Nadu 2nd Floor, Main Building, Rajaji Road, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.

3. The Director General Of Police Tamil Nadu, Chennai- 600 004.

4. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore- 641 018.

5. The Superintendent Of Police Thirupur District, Thirupur - 641 604.

6. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police Thirupur North Police Station, Thirupur District, Thirupur -641 602

7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. JRS WP No. 33619 of 2023 AND WMP NO. 33444 OF 2023,WMP NO. 33446 OF 2023 06-10-2026