WP/16059/2024 of V.GOPAL Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 22 September 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for two charges, one for not informing the purchase of Mahindra Bolero Jeep in his wife’s name, and the second charge is for having misappropriated the jewellery belongs to the complainant.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition is that, a robbery took place from the pawn broker shop of one Ezhumalai. In furtherance thereof, he gave a complaint before the Kadaladi Police Station on 21.09.2009. The total value of the gold jewels was Rs.20.00 lakhs. It is his case that he has been doing pawn broker business and that those jewels are pledged in his shop by various customers. During investigation, while the police has recovered the robbed jewels, the petitioner has accounted only the portion of the recovered jewels and misappropriated 714 grams of gold and 1.58

kg of silver. It is also the case of the prosecution that in spite of the complainant’s request to the petitioner to return, all the recovered jewellery, instead of returning all the jewellery, the petitioner has intimidated the complainant, which resulted in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and ultimately, the petitioner was issued with a punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, there were two charges framed against the petitioner viz., purchasing of Mahindra Bolero Jeep by the petitioner in the name of his wife, and misappropriation of 714 grams of gold and 1.58 kg of silver from the recovered robbed gold and silver items in Crime No.52 of 2009. It is the contention of the petitioner that, his wife was having silk saree business, and that his wife has purchased Mahindra Bolero by obtaining hire purchase loan from the State Bank of India. The mere absence of not intimating the purchase of vehicle by his wife will in no way to be construed as a violation of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.

Similarly, he has contended that the Investigating Officer in Crime No.52 of 2009 had in categorical terms admitted before the Disciplinary Authority that there were no recovery over and above what was produced before the Court and later on returned to the complainant Ezhumalai. He would further submit that the complainant himself, without raising any demur and not giving any complaint before any authorities, received the recovered jewellery from the Court. Having received the jewellery fully, with ulterior motive, he has given a complaint. The learned counsel would submit that when the complainant himself admitted that there are no records to show that he was in possession of 714 grams gold and 1.58 kg of silver over and above what was returned to him, the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner is guilt of two charges, is perverse. Hence, prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader and would contend that there was a circular by the Department to all the police officials to inform about the purchase of movable and immovable properties by their dependents. Having knowledge about the said circular, the suppression of the purchase of vehicle by his wife is nothing, but violation of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules.

He would also contend that though there are no recordable evidence to the effect that for the possession of gold and silver over and above what was returned to Ezhumalai, it is not the case of the petitioner that Ezhumalai and this petitioner have got a previous enmity, nor it is his case that the Superior Officer has fixed him with ulterior motive. Therefore, when there are no mala fides pleaded against the superior nor against the complainant, there is no reason to ignore the evidence of the complainant. He would submit that only before the Criminal Court, the proof is beyond reasonable doubts. In the case in hand, the reasoning assigned by the Disciplinary Authority that there are no reason to disbelieve the complainant Ezhumalai, is a probable conclusion. Therefore, there are no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

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

7. In this case, there are two charges framed against the petitioner. Let us proceed one after another. The first charge is the purchase of vehicle by the petitioner in the name of his wife. But, the petitioner relied upon the copy of RC book, where there is a reference that the vehicle was purchased under the hire purchase agreement, which factum was also elicited by RTO before the Enquiry Officer. Even for argument sake if he established that the vehicle was purchased by his wife, through the silk saree business, according to the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader, the petitioner’s wife has commenced business only from 2011, whereas the vehicle was purchased during 2008. Further, there are no proof that such business was intimated to the respondent as per the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules.

8. Except the reference that the vehicle was purchased through the hire purchase from State Bank of India, on perusal of the statement of accounts, it appears that the petitioner’s wife has received a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs by way of a loan and the said loan was discharged within short span of time, that too by way of cash payment. Where from the petitioner’s wife derived such cash payment within a short span of time has also not been established, except contending that she had a silk saree business, which evidentially commenced only during 2011. Therefore, there is a probable material available to demonstrate that the purchase of the vehicle was from the resources of this petitioner. Hence, the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority in this regard is only based upon the evidence available on record.

9. Alternatively, even for argument sake, if the petitioner’s wife had purchased the vehicle on her own, the fact remains that the same was not intimated to the Department, as per the circular in CRS-1/146118/2000 dated

19.07.2000. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.1225 dated 08.09.1998, when the petitioner has not challenged the issuance of GRS, which is of the year 2000, he cannot take advantage of the Rule issued by the Government, as the petitioner being an employee of the respondent, apart from relevant conduct Rules, he is also bound by the administrative circulars issued by the concerned Department. In this case, admittedly he has not intimated about the purchase of the vehicle by his wife. Therefore, the possible and probable finding of the first charge is in accordance with the available materials and there are no material to deviate from the finding of the Disciplinary Authority.

10. Coming to the second charge, admittedly there are no records to show that the complainant Ezhumalai was in possession of the gold jewels and silver articles over and above what he has received from the Court. But, the one argument advanced by the learned Additional Government Pleader impulse upon this Court that the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be faulted. The reason being the petitioner has not taken any defence in respect of the motive against complainant Ezhumalai. Though he has urged before the Disciplinary Authority to an extent that the complainant Ezhumalai does not have records, has not pleaded any mala fides on his part. Similarly, he has also not pleaded any mala fide against the superior, except by contending that the charges are false. When the petitioner was working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, and when there were no previous enmity between the complainant and this petitioner, no ordinary prudent man would dare to give a complaint against the police official that too against the officer in the rank of DSP.

11. Here, the nature of complaint is also serious for not reckoning the recovered articles of 714 grams of gold and 1.58 kg of silver. Further, the complaint was also examined before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that there are no records and not complaining before the Court, about the alleged misappropriation by the petitioner, the assessment of the complaint was based upon his memory and placement of the jewels in various tray has not been seriously disputed by the petitioner. According to his assessment, there were 714 grams of gold. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, in the absence of any defence of mala fides or previous enmity, there are no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. Further, the purchase of Bolero in the name of the petitioner’s wife would also vindicate the possible misappropriation of the jewellery.

12. As we know, the contours of the judicial review is very limited, unless and until the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority is perverse and contrary to the available materials, the question of interference of such order is very much remote and cannot be exercised. In the present case, in view of the above detailed discussion, this Court could not find any perversity in the impugned order.

13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KMI To

1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By Its Secretary To Government Home (police) Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

2. The Director General Of Police No. 1, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

3. The Inspector Director Ate Of Vigilance And Anti Corruption Netaji Nagar, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai 604.

4. The Superintendent Of Police District Police Office, Vengikkal Thiruvannamalai 606 604.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 16059 of 2024 22-09-2026