WP/6165/2014 of R.T.MUTHUMANICKAM Vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF on 24 September 2026

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the third respondent in passing the order dated 22.06.2010, by which, he was awarded with punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, which order was modified by the second respondent vide his order dated 30.04.2011 in the appeal filed by the petitioner and further, by the order of the first respondent in review petition dated 12.06.2012, the punishment awarded by the third respondent, as modified in appeal by the second respondent has been further modified to one of 'censure’ and to quash the same with a consequential prayer to include the petitioner’s name in the panel for the year 2007-08 for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent had issued a charge memo dated 19.05.2009, containing three articles of charge, alleging that while he was working as Inspector of Police, Soolagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District, in the year 2004, he had conducted himself in a highly reprehensible and unbecoming of a police officer and had registered three crimes against a contractor, Manager and owner of Hosiery and Textile Mill Company by booking cases against them under the provisions of Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000 ( in short “JJ Act”) and had arrested the concerned persons and produced before the Magistrate, who remanded them to judicial custody, even though the acts done by them did not attract the provisions of Section 24 and 26 of JJ Act to constitute an offence thereunder and omitted to take further action on the case registered.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent had issued the charge memo five years after the alleged incident; that without considering his explanation, appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the charges; that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.09.2009, holding that all the charges framed against him were not approved and there is a prima facie case for filing an FIR; and that he had never misused his official position; that the third respondent disagreeing with the aforesaid Enquiry Report had issued a Dissenting Note dated 07.04.2010, holding that all the three counts of charge were proved and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation ; that he submitted a detailed explanation to the Dissenting Note on 12.04.2010; that in the detailed explanation submitted by him, he had also stated that initiation of disciplinary action itself is beyond the period of five years and thus, the charge memo is vitiated, having been issued after in-ordinate and unexplained delay; and that the third respondent, however, without considering the said objection taken, had proceeded to pass the final order on 22.06.2010 imposing punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

5. The petitioner further contended that even before issuance of charge memo, he was transferred to the Social Justice and Human Rights Unit ( in short “SJ and HR”) in Salem City vide proceedings dated 17.11.2008 and had reported for duty as Inspector of Police of SJ and HR at Salem City on the same day; that the aforesaid SJ and HR Unit is under the Administrative Control of the Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General in SJ and HR Unit; that after the transfer and posting to SJ and HR unit, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (SJ & HR) is the Administrative and disciplinary authority for passing orders in pending disciplinary proceedings; that instead of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (SJ and HR), the impugned order, by which he was awarded punishment, has been passed by the third respondent and then, the order dated 22.06.2010 has been passed by an authority, who lacks jurisdiction.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the order by which he was awarded punishment had been passed by the third respondent, who lacked jurisdiction, he had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority/ second respondent herein on 28.07.2010, wherein he had taken a specific plea that the third respondent herein lacked jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, is not a disciplinary authority as per Schedule II Rule 3(b) of Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, (in short “TNDA Rules”), as he was transferred and posted to SJ and HR Unit under the control of Deputy Inspector General of Police, being the competent authority, and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated; that the second respondent, without considering the said plea taken in the appeal in a correct and proper manner, had passed an order dated 30.04.2011, modifying the punishment into postponement of the next increment for two years without cumulative effect; that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he had filed a review petition before the first respondent on 11.09.2011; that the first respondent, by its order dated 12.06.2012, holding that the SJ and HR Unit is under the administrative control of the Commissioner of Police Salem City, however, had modified the punishment awarded to him to one of “censure”.

7. The petitioner contended that though that the disciplinary proceedings against him were initiated only on 19.05.2009, his name was not included in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year

2007-08, whereas, names of his juniors were included and given promotion; that he was given promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by including his name in the panel for the year 2013-14 and therefore, was promoted to the post on 29.03.2013, while his name should have been included in the panel for the year 2007-08, which was not included only on account of the subsequent initiation of disciplinary proceedings and action of the respondents in not including his name in the panel, even though there existed vacancies in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, is illegal and contrary to the Rules, which specify that only when a charge memo is issued, the disqualification for being included in the panel would stand attracted.

8. Contending as above, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the impugned proceedings.

9. Counter affidavit on behalf of the third respondent is filed.

10. The third respondent, by the counter affidavit, while denying the writ averments other than those which have been specifically admitted, contended that the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report and that a Dissenting Note had been issued, holding that all the three counts of charges were proved; that the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 12.04.2010; that after considering the explanation, the third respondent had passed the final order imposing the punishment; that though the petitioner, while submitting his detailed explanation, had claimed that initiation of disciplinary action beyond the period of five years is vitiated, the TNDA Rules rules does not prescribe any time limit for initiating disciplinary proceedings; that on account of the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, the charge memo would not stand vitiated and thus, the third respondent had passed the order on 22.06.2010 awarding punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect for the period of two years.

11. The third respondent further contended that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had preferred the appeal before the second respondent i.e. Appellate Authority and mainly contended that at the time of imposing punishment, he was working as Inspector of Police (SJ and HR); and that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (SJ and HR) Unit was the competent authority to pass the order of punishment against him and not the third respondent; that the second respondent while disposing of the appeal negatived the said plea by referring to G.O.Ms.No.1159 dated 25.11.2001 and amendment to Rule 2 of TNDA Rules, 1955 and held that the Commissioner of Police, Salem City is the Competent Authority; that the second respondent, however, had modified the punishment awarded to one of postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect; that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had preferred the review petition to the first respondent; that the first respondent, by considering the review petition and

having gone through the Personal Record file and connected records carefully and also noting that the petitioner did not deny the registration of the case or arrest made by him but only sought to justify his action claiming that the same was in order, had held that the order of the disciplinary authority holding charge as proved is correct; that the first respondent while holding as above had held that since no malicious intention has been brought out in the evidence, a lenient view can be taken and accordingly modified the punishment as ‘Censure’; that the first respondent while modifying the punishment awarded by the third respondent as modified in appeal by the second respondent, to one of ‘censure’ had rejected the plea urged by the petitioner of the third respondent lacking jurisdiction and held that since, the SJ and HR Unit is under the administrative control of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police, the said Authority would not lose its jurisdiction to pass orders in disciplinary proceedings initiated against a member of service working under his jurisdiction merely on account of the petitioner having been transferred to another unit in the District; and that at this stage i.e. at the stage of review, the said issue became irrelevant as the power to review in either case vested with the first respondent himself.

12. The respondent during the course of hearing of the writ petitioner further contended that the petitioner stood Sl.No.234 in the common seniority list; and that as would be evident from G.O.Ms.No.658 dated 10.06.2008, the panel for the year 2007-08, ended with the name of Mr.T.Inbamani, whose seniority was at Sl.No.175 in the common seniority list; and thus, the claim of the petitioner of his junior being promoted during the panel for the year 2007- 08, is not borne out from the record and invented for the purpose of present writ petitioner to cause prejudice against the respondents.

13. On behalf of the respondent, it is further contended that during the subsequent year, as disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he had been awarded punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect initially, the petitioner’s name was not included in the panel for promotion; and that on the said punishment being modified to one of ‘censure’ by the order of the first respondent dated 12.06.2012, the petitioner had been granted promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 29.03.2013.

14. Contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the present writ petition.

15. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

16. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of judicial review in relation to the disciplinary proceeding and the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is limited. It has been time and again held that a writ court, in a challenge to the disciplinary proceeding cannot act as the Court of second appeal ( see: Gunasekaran case 2016).

17. The limited ground of judicial review in a challenge to the disciplinary action is to see i)whether the authority who initiated disciplinary action lacked jurisdiction ii) whether there is any violation of the principles of natural justice iii) whether the procedure prescribed for conducting disciplinary proceedings has been followed or not/ and iv) the punishment awarded in so disproportionate shocking the conscious of Court.

18. Though the petitioner had put his case on the ground that the third respondent lacked jurisdiction to pass the order dated 22.06.2010, as he was transferred and posted as Inspector of Police (SJ and HR) Unit, Salem on 17.11.2008 and that the said unit is under the control of Deputy Inspector General of Police of SJ and HR Unit and thus, the said authority being only the competent authority, and thus, the impugned proceedings is vitiated as having been passed by the authority who lacked jurisdiction, it is to be noted that as per Rule 4 of TNDA Rules and the schedule appended thereto, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.1159, Home ( POL.VI) Department dated 23.11.2001, in respect of Inspector of Police, the Authority, who can impose any penalties prescribed in Rule (2), is stated as Deputy Commissioner concerned.

19. However, the explanation to Rule (4) confers powers on the Higher authority to impose any penalty under this Rule. The above being power conferred under the Rule, the order dated 22.06.2010 passed by the third respondent in his capacity as Inspector General of Police-cum-the Commissioner of Police is to be treated as having been passed by the Higher Authority and thus, the contention of the petitioner that on he being, transferred to SJ and HR unit on 17.11.2008, the third respondent loses jurisdiction over him and it is only the Deputy Inspector General of Police of SJ and HR unit, who is the competent authority to pass order is without any merit and cannot be countenanced.

20. Since, the order of punishment is issued by the Authority, who is higher in rank than the Deputy Inspector General of Police unit (SJ and HR) which authority is also under the administrative control of the third respondent, the order passed by the third respondent cannot be said to be vitiated on account of lack of jurisdiction. Since, the petitioner main challenge in the present writ petition is on the said ground and as this Court having now come to the conclusion that the third respondent does not lose its administrative jurisdiction over the petitioner merely on account of his transfer to another unit which is also under his administrative control, the scope of judicial review of the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority becomes narrow and by catena of judicial precedents, it has been held that the disciplinary authority/ Appellate Authority is the final authority in so far as award of punishment is concerned, and the Court cannot re-appreciate/re- evaluate the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion or substitute its view with that of the disciplinary authority (see : B.C. Chaturvedi case).

21. The main challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of third respondent as modified in appeal by the second respondent and further reviewed by the first respondent and this Court, having come to the conclusion that the award of punishment as modified does not call for any interference, as the petitioner had failed to demonstrate before this court, the same being in violation of any of the grounds where a judicial review is permitted and the punishment awarded to the petitioner not being one which is shocking the conscious of the Court, the challenge to the impugned proceedings has to fail.

22. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner that it is on account of the initiation of disciplinary proceeding during the year 2009, his name having not been included in the panel for the year 2007-08 for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which his junior having been promoted, and such exclusion is contrary to Rules, the petitioner except making the said assertion in the affidavit, did not place on record any material to show that his junior having been promoted in the panel for the year 2007-08 over looking his seniority.

23. On the other hand, the respondents by placing on record, Government order vide G.O.Ms.No.658, Home ( Police-2) Department dated 10.06.2008, by which temporary panel of Inspectors of Police fit for appointment by recruitment by transfer as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-1) for the year 2007-08 was approved by the Government, contended that the aforesaid G.O., shows that in all 93 Inspectors of Police have been promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, starting with the name of S.Rajagopalan and ending with the name of Mr.T.Inbamani; that the name of the last promotee of the panel year 2007-08 namely, T.Inbamani finds place at Sl.No.175 in the seniority list of Inspectors of Police as on 01.06.2008, while the name of the petitioner is at Sl.No.234. Since the immediate junior to the petitioner, Thiru.A.Tamilselvan, being mentioned as Sl.No.235 and the name of the junior of the petitioner having not been mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.658 dated 10.06.2005, the claim of the petitioner of his juniors having been promoted in the panel for the year 2007-08 is an unfounded claim. Since, the panel for the year 2007-08 having closed at Sl.No.175 in the seniority list of Inspectors, the petitioner, who is Sl.No.234 cannot claim, his juniors having been promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police overlooking his seniority in the said panel year, requiring this Court to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits including further promotion and other monetary benefits.

24. In view of the above discussion and analysis, this Court of the view that the challenge to the proceedings impugned in the present writ petition i.e. viz., the proceedings of the third, second and the first respondents, has to fail. Further, the claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the panel for the year 2007- 08 for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, is also without any merit.

25. Accordingly, this writ petition is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions if any, stand closed. 24-09-2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking : Non Speaking Order KKD

T.VINOD KUMAR, J. KKD To

1. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.

2. The Additional Director General of Police (law And Order), Mylapore, Chennai-4.

3. The Inspector General And Commissioner of Police, Salem City.

4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem 636 007. Pre-delivery Order in WP No. 6165 of 2014 24-09-2026