WP/5905/2024 of M.SEKAR Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS on 28 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions arise out of identical charges framed against the respective petitioners in these Writ Petitions. In W.P.No.5905 of 2024, the petitioner, namely, M.Sekar, was then working as the Sub-Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police Station. In W.P.No.5907 of 2024, the petitioner was then working as the Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police Station.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these Writ Petitions are that the petitioners were in charge of Natrampalli Police Station when an occurrence of robbery took place on 01.10.2015. Pursuant thereto, on 02.10.2015, a complaint was lodged by the Lorry Driver and immediately thereafter, one Malar, Sub-Inspector of Police, issued a CSR. According to the First Information Report, totally six persons were involved. Out of them, five persons were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.11.2015, 09.11.2015 and, lastly, on 19.11.2015. When the petitioners secured one of the accused, viz., Vignesh @ Manikandan, he confessed to the commission of the offence and also stated about the involvement of one C.Rajasekaran.

2.1. Thereafter, the said C.Rajasekaran was taken into custody. It is alleged that, in order to secure his release, the petitioners demanded a bribe of Rs.20 lakhs and, after negotiations, the said C.Rajasekaran, through his brother Perumal, paid a sum of Rs.12 lakhs, out of which a sum of Rs.7 lakhs was kept in the Police Station and the remaining Rs.5 lakhs were distributed among various persons. Though such amount was recovered from different places, the charge against the petitioners relates to the recovery of Rs.7 lakhs from the Police Station. According to the respondents, the said amount was a bribe amount received by the petitioners. It was also charged that they had kept the said C.Rajasekaran in illegal custody. After completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioners were imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

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

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were working as Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police respectively, and the disciplinary authority is only the Deputy Inspector General of Police, whereas the impugned order was passed by the Secretary, namely, the Government. Therefore, the petitioners were prejudiced by being denied their legitimate right to prefer a two-tier appeal. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that there are no records to show that the complainant in the disciplinary proceedings, viz., the said C.Rajasekaran, was arrested on 16.11.2015. If really the said C.Rajasekaran had been brought to the Police Station, there ought to have been some entry in the General Diary or other Station records. Likewise, there ought to have been some record regarding the recovery of a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from his house. The said C.Rajasekaran came into the picture only after recording the confession statement of one Vignesh @ Manikandan on 19.11.2015. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would strongly dispute the contention that the said C.Rajasekaran was kept in illegal custody from 16.11.2015 onwards.

4.1. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, as per Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for the sake of convenience), if there is a joint charge against various employees, the disciplinary authority would be the highest authority, viz., the disciplinary authority competent to deal with the employee holding the higher rank. In the present case, since the petitioners are the Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police respectively, the assumption of the role of disciplinary authority by the Government has vitiated the entire proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel would strenuously submit that the allegation regarding the recovery of the bribery amount of Rs.7 lakhs from the Police Station is contrary to the Court records. It is his submission that the alleged bribery amount was nothing but the amount recovered from the said C.Rajasekaran under a seizure mahazar, and a copy of the seizure mahazar was forwarded to the Court as early as on 19.11.2015 itself. However, the amount could not be deposited on account of an inspection that was going on in the concerned Court.

4.2. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, when the seizure mahazar dated 19.11.2015 indicated the seizure of Rs.7 lakhs from the said C.Rajasekaran and the same was informed to the Court on the very same day, which is also evident from the seal of the Court and the signature of the learned Magistrate, the subsequent recovery said to have taken place on 08.12.2015, ignoring the seizure mahazar and the filing of the same before the Court on 19.11.2015, and arriving at a conclusion that the said amount was a bribe amount, is a rank perverse finding. The non-reliance upon the Court document demonstrates the arbitrariness of the disciplinary authority. Had it been a bribe amount, there would not have been any possibility for the petitioners to prepare the seizure mahazar and file the same before the Court on 19.11.2015. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the filing of the seizure mahazar is vindicated by the seal of the concerned Court, whereas the said mahazar was not at all considered by the disciplinary authority. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Senthurpandian v. Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 356, and the judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.27144 of 2019 and 6390 of 2021, dated 29.08.2022. Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ Petitions.

5. The aforesaid contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government Advocate and would contend that the disciplinary proceedings were not only initiated against the petitioners, but were also initiated against one G.Vanitha, who was then working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Insofar as the said Deputy Superintendent of Police is concerned, the Government being the disciplinary authority, there is no infirmity in passing the final order. It is also the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the witnesses who were working in the very same Police Station had spoken about the presence of the said C.Rajasekaran from 16.11.2015 to 19.11.2015 in the Police Station. Therefore, the statement of the delinquent officers that he was secured only on 19.11.2015 is palpably false.

5.1. The learned Government Advocate would further contend that, according to the statement of one of the petitioners, viz., M.Sekar, he had admitted that the said C.Rajasekaran was brought to the Station on 16.11.2015 and sent back on 19.11.2015. Therefore, there is abundant evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the said C.Rajasekaran was kept in illegal custody from 16.11.2015 to 19.11.2015. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the brother of the said C.Rajasekaran, viz., Perumal, had spoken about the payment of the amount as a bribe. Though it was contended by the delinquent officers that the said amounts were recovered from C.Rajasekaran and that they had also prepared a seizure mahazar and filed the same before the Court, there are no records available in the CD file and the property register. Hence, he would contend that the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority are probable and plausible findings and that there is no perversity in the same. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petitions.

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

7. 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 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 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.

8. Let us now discuss the facts of the present case in the touchstone of the aforesaid settled legal principles. The sum and substance of the first charge is the alleged illegal detention of the said C.Rajasekaran from 16.11.2015 to 19.11.2015. The petitioners would contend that the involvement of the said C.Rajasekaran came to their knowledge during the course of investigation, while recording the confession statement of one of the co-accused, viz., Vignesh @ Manikandan. Immediately after coming to know about the involvement of the said C.Rajasekaran, they took him into custody on 19.11.2015. It is their specific case that they were neither aware, through any of the witnesses, nor had they found during their investigation about the involvement of the said C.Rajasekaran until 19.11.2015.

9. However, on perusal of the witness statements, it is seen that, though the first and second witnesses are inter se witnesses, viz., the complainant himself and his brother Perumal, PW.5/Santhi, who was a Grade-I Police Constable at Natrampalli Police Station, PC.No.3492, and the co-accused Vignesh @ Manikandan and Head Constable G.Sampath, who were examined as PW.8 and PW.10 respectively, and one Aravindan, PW.37, Youth Brigade No.8572, Natrampalli Police Station, one Malar, Data Entry Operator at Natrampalli Police Station, and PW.41 Selvakumar, Special Sub-Inspector of Police at Kavalur Police Station, have categorically deposed that they had seen C.Rajasekaran at Natrampalli Police Station between 16.11.2015 and 19.11.2015. Not only that, they have also spoken about the interrogation conducted by the petitioners with C.Rajasekaran.

10. The petitioners would now contend that there is no relevant entry in the Police Station records to substantiate such contention. However, the issue before this Court is not merely whether any entry was available in the Station records, but whether the said C.Rajasekaran was under the control of the delinquent officers. The aforesaid witnesses have categorically and unequivocally stated that the said C.Rajasekaran was under the control of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority are probable and plausible findings. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority insofar as the first charge is concerned.

11. Coming to the second charge relating to the recovery of Rs.7 lakhs as a bribery amount from Natrampalli Police Station, it is the specific case of the petitioners that the amount was seized from the said C.Rajasekaran on 19.11.2015 and that the same constituted the proceeds of the crime. The defence put forth by the delinquent officers is mainly based upon the seizure mahazar. No doubt, on perusal of the seizure mahazar, there is an initial with the date 19.11.2015 and there is also a Court seal of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Vellore, with the date 20.11.2015. For ready reference, the scanned copy of the same is extracted hereunder:-

12. This document was produced before the Enquiry Officer, but the Enquiry Officer did not rely upon the said document. On perusal of the seizure mahazar, there is a reference to the recovery of Rs.7 lakhs from one

C.Rajasekaran on 19.11.2015 at 12.30 hours, which is stated to be subsequent to the recording of the confession statement of one Vignesh @ Manikandan at 1.00 a.m. The fact that the delinquent officers had prepared the seizure mahazar and purportedly submitted the same before the Court, while there is no corresponding entry in the CD file or property register, and in the absence of the copy of the seizure mahazar in the CD file, requires consideration.

13. In this case, it is also relevant to refer to the evidence of PW.50, one Ashokan, the then Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. After analysing the CD files, he has stated that there were no records such as Form-91 or any record regarding the case property in the CD files. It is also relevant to mention that, though the delinquent officers had taken a defence that the said C.Rajasekaran was brought into custody on 19.11.2015 and that the amount was recovered on the same day, such statement was falsified through the evidence of various official witnesses who were working in the very same Police Station. Therefore, when there is abundant evidence to show that the said C.Rajasekaran was present in the Station from 16.11.2015 to 19.11.2015, the defence taken by the petitioners cannot be accepted.

14. The finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer that the seizure mahazar had been manipulated to overcome the case cannot be held to be a perverse finding, much less an improbable finding. One material aspect which shocks the conscience of this Court is that there is no evidence put forth by the petitioners regarding the arrest of the said C.Rajasekaran after knowing his involvement and after recovering a sum of Rs.7 lakhs. The witnesses had deposed that, on 19.11.2015, the said C.Rajasekaran was allowed to leave the Station along with his brother Perumal. Further, the official vehicle of the petitioners is bearing Registration No.TN.23.G.1325. The above vehicle has no record evidencing a trip to Hosur, where a sum of Rs.7 lakhs was allegedly recovered. This aspect also assumes equal significance, and also probabilises the possibility of manipulation of records. Merely because some records had been produced before the Court with the seal and initials of the Court, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the same has to be construed as conclusive proof of the defence taken by the petitioners.

15. It is well-settled principle of law that, in disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the following circumstances assume significance: (i) there is abundant evidence to show that the said C.Rajasekaran was present in the Police Station and was under the control of the petitioners from 16.11.2015 to 19.11.2015; (ii) the said C.Rajasekaran was not arrested and was released along with his brother Perumal on 19.11.2015; (iii) there are no supporting documents in the CD file regarding such recovery; and (iv) the official vehicle trip chart of the petitioners does not disclose any trip to the place of seizure, viz., Hosur. Admittedly, the amount was kept unaccounted for with the knowledge of the delinquent officers.

16. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, the finding rendered by the disciplinary authority that the amount was nothing but a bribe given by the said C.Rajasekaran cannot be faulted. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the finding rendered by the disciplinary authority even with regard to the second charge is based upon the available evidence, and this Court does not find any perversity in such finding. Even assuming that reliance is placed upon the seizure mahazar produced before the concerned Criminal Court, the same cannot, by itself, completely dislodge the doubt raised by the disciplinary authority so as to render its finding perverse. Therefore, this Court cannot give any undue weightage to the seizure mahazar, particularly in view of the serious doubt surrounding the said document.

17. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider another argument put forth by the learned Senior Counsel with reference to Rule 9-A of the Rules. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereunder:- “9A. In any case where more than one Government servant of the same Department are jointly involved or whose cases are interconnected, the authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings shall be the immediate higher authority in that Department in respect of the Government servant who holds the highest post among such Government servants and the disciplinary proceedings against all of them shall be taken together. Where inquiry is to be conducted in terms of rule 17(b), the said authority may either himself conduct the inquiry or get the inquiry conducted by an Inquiring Officer appointed by the authority competent to impose major penalty in respect of the Government servant who holds the highest post among such Government servants. The said authority shall remit the case, at the appropriate stage, to the authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in rule 8 in respect of the Government servant who holds the highest post among such Government servants in that Department for passing final orders.”

18. In the case in hand, as already stated, apart from these petitioners, a higher officer, viz., G.Vanitha, was also arrayed as a delinquent, and a separate PR in PR.No.100 of 2019 was registered against them. However, subsequently, after obtaining her explanation, she was dropped from the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the initiation of the common disciplinary proceedings cannot be faulted. On a perusal of Rule 9-A of the Rules, what is essential is that the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken up together. Further, in the case in hand, from the available materials, this Court is satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings against these petitioners were taken up together and findings were rendered. Therefore, the defence raised with reference to Rule 9-A of the Rules also fails. Further, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

19. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court does not find any merit in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To

1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary yo Govt., Home (Police 1A) Department, The Secretariat Chennai 109.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Vellore Range, Vellore.

3. Enquiry Officer Cum Superintendent of Police In P.R. No.99/2019, Vellore District, Vellore.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP Nos. 5905 and 5907 of 2024

28-09-2026