WP/7944/2024 of A.NAZIL Vs THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE / on 1 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

The petitioner in W.P.No.7944 of 2024, Mr. A. Nazil, and the petitioner in W.P.No.7950 of 2024, Mr. P. Suresh, were Police Constables attached to the SIPCOT Police Station, Krishnagiri. They were served with a charge memorandum in respect of a charge of corruption, vide charge memorandum dated 25.10.2021. After receipt of their explanations, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, after examining the witnesses on the Management side as well as the defence side, ultimately found that the charge of corruption was proved against them. Based on the said finding, the disciplinary authority qua the second respondent dismissed both of them from service, vide dismissal order dated 17.11.2022. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the third respondent. However, concurring with the findings of the disciplinary authority, the third respondent dismissed the appeals on 02.03.2023. The review applications filed before the Head of the Department were also dismissed by the fourth respondent on 04.03.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petitions have been filed. Since the facts involved in both the Writ Petitions are arising out of the same transaction, both the Writ Petitions are taken up for a common disposal.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petitions are that on 09.07.2021, the petitioner, Mr.Nazil, was on night beat duty within the limits of the SIPCOT Police Station. While he was on duty at about 21:42.51 hours, he received a phone call from the other delinquent, Mr.P.Suresh, namely, the petitioner in W.P.No.7950 of 2024, informing him about the transportation of contraband and requesting him to intercept the vehicle. On receiving such information, he intercepted a Mini Lorry, which was transporting the contraband. Thereafter, he directed the driver to park the vehicle in the Bengaluru-Krishnagiri Bypass Road. Since the Mini Lorry was carrying banned gutkha products, the petitioners demanded a sum of Rs.9 lakhs for release of the vehicle without registering any FIR. Since the driver was not in a position to pay the said amount immediately, he spoke to his owner, one Mr.Dinesh. After speaking with the said Mr.Dinesh, the petitioner/Nazil took away the key of the Mini Lorry. On the next day, i.e., on 10.07.2021, at about 5.30 a.m., when Dinesh handed over a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- to the petitioner/Nazil, the vehicle key was returned to him.

2.1. On receipt of the said amount, he informed to the co-delinquent, viz., Suresh. But he kept the above amount at his residence. While so, on receipt of secret information, Mr. Balakrishnan, Inspector of Police, who was then Inspector of Police at Mathigiri Police Station and was also in-charge of the SIPCOT Police Station, on the instructions of his higher official, enquired the petitioner/Nazil. On enquiry, Nazil gave a confession statement. On recording the confession statement, Mr.Balakrishnan proceeded to the residence of the Nazil on 11.07.2021, where a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- was recovered. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioners were guilty of a grave charge of corruption.

3. Heard the Party-in-Person the petitioner in W.P.No.7944 of 2024, Mr. K. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.7950 of 2024, and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in both the cases, and perused the materials available on record.

4. The Party-in-Person of W.P.No.7944 of 2024 would submit that the Management has neither any direct evidence nor any scientific evidence against both the petitioners, and that the only basis for the charge is the confession statement allegedly given by him, which according to the respondents led to the discovery of the fact by way of recovery of a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- from his residence. It is the contention of the Party-in-Person that, as on the date of the recovery, he had sufficient balance in his bank account and that, a few days back, viz., on 05.07.2021, he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs, totalling Rs.11 lakhs from his Bank account. In the above amount, after meeting out certain commitments, there was a balance in a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- were kept at his residence. The Party-in-Person would further contend that, having demonstrated before the disciplinary authority that the said amount was nothing but the amount withdrawn from the Bank, the finding of guilt on the basis of the alleged confession statement is erroneous and against preponderance of probabilities.

4.1. It is the further submission of the Party-in-Person that the failure on the part of the Enquiry Officer, as well as the disciplinary authority to consider the Bank statement, is fallacious and perverse. He would further contend that, at the relevant point of time, he was on duty regulating the traffic and was attending the duty at the accident spot. He would further submit that, though the respondents projected a case of corruption of receipt of bribe from one Dinesh, neither the said Dinesh nor the involvement of the Mini Lorry has been proved. It is also his contention that the said Dinesh was not even cited as a witness before the disciplinary authority. Hence, it is his submission that, with an ulterior motive, the then Inspector of Police proceeded against him, and that there are no materials against him. He would further submit the very finding is without there being any basis and contrary to available material. Hence, he prayed for interference with the impugned dismissal order.

5. In addition to the above submission, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.K.Venkataramani appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.7950 of 2024 would contend that, as against the petitioner, viz., Suresh, there are no materials, except the confession statement of Nazil. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a confession statement, unless there is a specific overt act or direct evidence regarding the involvement of this petitioner, mere reference to a telephonic conversation, which would be natural between friends, qua two known Police Constables, that too working in the same Station. It is also his submission that, when the respondent authority has raised a serious charge of corruption, the non-registration of the FIR against the peddler, the failure to investigate the involvement of the vehicle, and the failure to identify the persons who allegedly gave the bribe to the petitioners would all demonstrate that the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority are perverse. Hence, he prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

6. Per contra, the aforesaid contentions were stoutly opposed by the learned Special Government Pleader, and would contend that, on receipt of the secret information, the station in-charge Mr.Balakrishnan, Inspector of Police interrogated both the petitioners. While so, both the petitioners gave voluntary

confession statements. In furtherance of their confession, there was also a recovery of Rs.3,10,000/- from the residence of the petitioner/Nazil. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that, though the said Nazil had taken a defence that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.11 lakhs from the Bank and that the balance amount was kept in his residence, the same cannot be believed, as the petitioner had not withdrawn even a farthing from 15.12.2020 to 01.07.2021, i.e., for almost a period of seven months.

6.1. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the very conduct of the petitioner/Nazil in not withdrawing even a single farthing, would raise a question as to how the petitioner could have met with his day-to-day expenses. Therefore, he contended that in the absence of any withdrawal by Mr.Nazil for almost seven months, the amount available at the petitioner's residence could only be construed as bribe amount.

6.2. It is also his contention that the CDR particulars demonstrate that the petitioners, namely, Nazil and Suresh, had spoken to each other and that they had also contacted one Dinesh, and further both the petitioners voluntarily gave confession admitting their guilt. Thus, it was contended that the finding of the disciplinary authority cannot be held to be perverse. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that, though the petitioner/Nazil would contend that the amount available at his residence was the balance amount withdrawn from the Bank, his failure to examine the Bank official would dislodge his defence. Hence, he prayed to dismiss these Writ Petitions.

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

8. In the present case, the following facts are relevant. On 09.07.2021, both the petitioners were working as constables in SIPCOT Police Station, Krishnagiri. At about 22:45 hours, the petitioner/Nazil was in his night beat duty, whereas the other petitioner/Suresh was in his residence. Both were residing separately at Zuzuwadi, Hosur. The Inspector of Police/ Balakrishnan, namely, the Management's first witness, received secret information of the involvement of these petitioners in corruption charge of receiving a bribe from one Dinesh. Immediately, with a permission of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he enquired both the petitioners, and both have allegedly given confession to him. However, the confession statements were subsequently retracted by the petitioners, and it is their stand that such confession statements were obtained by duress and coercion.

9. Though this being disciplinary proceedings under Service Jurisprudence, there is no necessity for strict adherence of Indian Evidence Act. But the allegation against the petitioners is not merely an administrative lapse, but an allegation of commission of a cognizable offence, namely, receipt of a bribe and allowing the contraband loaded vehicle to vanish. Therefore, the allegation is attached with criminality, qua a cognizable offence, which ought to have been registered as an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the relevant provisions of IPC and Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act.

10. Now, the Management witness, namely, the Inspector of Police, claims privilege of secrecy regarding the source of secret information, which is the origin for entire proceedings. Since this being the disciplinary proceedings, whether such privilege can be claimed by the Inspector of Police (PW1) or not is a debatable issue. However, this Court does not want to go into the said aspect in the present case. Here, the entire gamut of the respondents' case rest upon circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, there are no direct materials, except the confession statement of the petitioner/Nazil. In the confession statement, except the receipt of bribe there are also information regarding the cognizable offence of peddling banned tobacco products.

11. Let us now consider the extent to which this Court can interfere with the administrative decisions taken in disciplinary proceedings while exercising the power of judicial review. 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. Therefore, the contours of judicial review are very much limited. It is also relevant to mention that in disciplinary proceedings, there is no strict application of the Indian Evidence Act, and what is essential is compliance of the principles of natural justice to it’s letter and sprit. However, in the present case, as rightly contended by the Party-in-Person, the entire case of the

Management rests upon the confession given by him and the said confession allegedly led to the recovery of a sum of Rs.3,10,000/-.

13. At this juncture, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, when the allegation is of such magnitude, namely, demand of Rs.9 lakhs and payment of Rs.3,10,000/- as bribe, which resulted in releasing the large haul of contraband from the legal tangling, is not a small issue. Therefore, the same requires forensic consideration. In the above backdrop, the reliability of the confession assumes significance. To put it differently in the proclivity of the event, we need to consider as to what extent the confession statement can be believed and to what extent the disciplinary authority can base their finding on the retracted confession statement.

14. In the present case, the core of the charge is that, he (Nazil) received a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- from one Dinesh. According to the disciplinary authority, the said sum of Rs.3,10,000/- was recovered from his residence. However, the petitioner’s defence is, the said amount is his personal money. To substantiate the same, he relied upon his statement of account with the Axis Bank. On perusal of the statement, a sum of Rs.11 lakhs was withdrawn from Mr.Nazil’s account on 05.07.2021, just about five days prior to the alleged date of recovery of the amount. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject amount is the balance.

15. On perusal of the counter affidavit, there is no serious dispute with regard to the authenticity of the statement of account or the withdrawal of the sum of Rs.11 lakhs. But, the Enquiry Officer did not believe the theory of balance amount as there was no spending by Mr. Nazil’s and from 15.12.2020 to 04.07.2021, not even a single paisa was withdrawn. Based upon such conduct, he held that the recovered amount is bribe amount. Naturally a question would arose as to how a person could live for seven months without spending any amount.

16. No doubt, such reasoning may require consideration only in a case, when a person is specifically charged for disproportionate income against his known source of income. However, the charge in the present case is not that the petitioner/Nazil was having income disproportionate to his known sources of income, or that he did not withdraw any amount for 7 months, but on the other hand, the specific charge against the Nazil is, he received a bribe of sum of Rs.3,10,000/- from one Dinesh.

17. If the charge were one of disproportionate income, then the petitioner might have been required to let in evidence to show how he maintained himself during the relevant period. But, in the present case, the charge is very specific, namely, that he allegedly received Rs.3,10,000/- as bribe, and that such amount was found at the residence of the petitioner/Nazil and later recovered. When the petitioner established before the Enquiry Officer about the withdrawal of Rs.11 lakhs from the Bank, and when the factum of withdrawal was not seriously disputed, the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer that the said amount was the bribe amount is palpably perverse, particularly in the absence of any direct or indirect evidence with regard to the demand and handing over of the money.

18. Though the respondents rely upon one Dinesh being the owner of the contraband, and a person who handed over Rs.3,10,000/- to the petitioner/Nazil, for the reason best known to the respondents, he was not examined before the Enquiry Officer, much less he was not cited as witness. It is pertinent to mention here that, during cross-examination, the petitioner questioned PW1 as to why Mr.Dinesh had not been examined. The reply given by the Inspector of Police (PW1), was that, despite issuance of summons, he had not appeared. However, on persual of charge memorandum, the said Dinesh had not at all been cited as a witness.

19. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner/Nazil received a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- from one Dinesh and that the said amount was recovered from Mr.Nazil’s residence is palpably perverse findings. However, the respondents rely upon the confession statement. No doubt, as already stated, the strict application of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to disciplinary proceedings. However,

this will not give any unbridled right upon the respondents to rely whatever they like without any proof.

20. In this regard, if we look at the definition of "proof" under the Indian Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. In the present case, if there were no evidence before the Enquiry Officer regarding the withdrawal of the amount from the Bank, and if the petitioners had not properly accounted for their possession of the said amount, and if there had been a long lapse of time between the withdrawal from the Bank and the recovery, then there could have been some reason to believe that the said amount might have been received in the manner alleged by the Management.

21. At this juncture, this Court would like to emphasise one material aspect, namely, the charge. Here the charge is not that the petitioner/Nazil was in possession of money disproportionate to his known sources of income. Contrarily, the charge is so specific, that he received a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- from Dinesh as bribe to release the contraband. Admittedly, there are no evidence as to the existence of one Dinesh, nature of contraband, vehicle number and driver details and not even any electronic evidence to show at least the suspicious moment of these petitioners. Therefore, in the absence of any further evidence, the reasoning given by the disciplinary authority to reject the petitioner’s defence is absolutely perverse. Such a finding has been arrived at by the Enquiry Officer solely on the basis of the suspicion. The suspicion how so ever strong cannot be equated with the proof.

22. Let us consider the theory of confession statement. In the present case, when PW1 received the secret information, it was not only a misconduct of receiving bribe, but also with regard to a cognizable offence of transporting huge haul of banned tobacco. However, curi ously no FIR was registered regarding the illegal transportation of contraband. Therefore, in such a scenario, this Court is of a considered view that it would be unsafe to sustain the finding solely based upon the retracted confession statement.

23. In such a background, the submission made by the Party-in-Person and the learned Senior Counsel that the non-examination of Dinesh, failure to identify the vehicle involved in the alleged offence, and the failure to take any steps to register an FIR in respect of the alleged illegal transportation of contraband assumes greater significance. Due to the lapse of such glaring omission, this Court finds it difficult to subscribe to the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority.

24. Before closing the curtain, this Court would like to consider the role played by another delinquent Mr.Suresh, qua the petitioner in W.P.No.7950 of 2024. According to the disciplinary authority, he had passed on the secret information regarding the illegal transportation of the contraband. To substantiate the same, as already stated, except the confession statement, there are no documents. Though there are CDR particulars, connecting both the petitioners, it is too unsafe to give importance to the said conversation, since both the petitioners were working in the same Police Station, and were residing at Zuzuwadi. Therefore, such conversation, by itself, cannot be construed as an objectionable conversation.

25. It is relevant to mention that, according to the disciplinary authority, the vehicle was parked at Krishnagiri for almost six to seven hours and that, as per the case of the respondents, both the petitioners were standing near the vehicle. However, there are no witnesses, at least, to speak about their suspicious conduct in relation to the vehicle. Though PW1 had stated that the vehicle number was not furnished by the petitioners during the confession statement, the lack of interest on part of the disciplinary authority to ascertain the vehicle number also assume significance.

26. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the finding reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse and contrary to the available evidence, besides he failed to consider the material evidence available on record. Therefore, finding of the disciplinary authority is liable to be interfered with.

27. Thus, in view of the above detailed discussion, the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the orders passed by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority are also liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 17.11.2022, 03.03.2023 and 04.03.2024 are hereby quashed. As a concomitant, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

28. In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police / Enquiry Officer, Bargur, Krishnagiri District- 635 001.

2. The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri District- 635 001.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Salem Range, Salem.

4. The Director General of Police / Head of Police Force, Tamil Nadu, Chennai- 04.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV Pre Delivery order in WP Nos. 7944 and 7950 of 2024 01-10-2026