WA/498/2024 of State of Tamil Nadu Vs T. Arivazhagan on 10 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) The unsuccessful respondents in the writ petition are the appellants herein.

2. The respondent herein is the writ petitioner, who filed the writ petition seeking to quash the punishment passed by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 24.03.2008.

3. It is the case of the respondent herein/writ petitioner that he joined as a Typist in the Police Department and rose to the post of Superintendent on 05.09.2003, working at the office of the Joint Commissioner of Police, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai - 16. While he was working as Superintendent (Crimes I & II Section), Chennai East District, the second appellant, by proceedings dated 25.10.2004, nominated him as a Team Manager for the Inter-Range Games Meet for the Year 2004, which was scheduled to be held between 26.10.2004 and 30.10.2004. At the same time, the petitioner was directed to report before the Superintendent of Police, Salem District, along with the participants on the afternoon of 27.10.2004. However, to his shock and surprise, on 26.10.2004, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Superintendent (Crimes I & II Section) to the post of Superintendent (Pension Section) vide proceedings dated 26.10.2004. The petitioner reported for the sports meet at Salem as Team Manager, returned to headquarters on 01.11.2004, and took charge as Superintendent (Pension Section).

4. It is the further case of the respondent that no prescribed procedure was followed when transferring him from one place to another within the same office. Nevertheless, the second appellant issued a charge memo on 09.02.2005 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, framing six charges against the respondent on the ground of dereliction of duty and failure to effectively supervise correspondence relating to the execution of warrants of arrest. The respondent submitted his explanation to the charges, and an inquiry was conducted by the third appellant herein, who was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer, after conducting an oral inquiry, passed a detailed order holding that the charges were proved. Based on the inquiry report, the first appellant imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. Challenging that order, the respondent filed the writ petition.

5. The appellants, who were the respondents in the writ petition, filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that there was a clear dereliction of duty, as the petitioner failed to supervise the correspondence relating to the execution of warrants of arrest. A proper oral inquiry was conducted, and after affording an opportunity to the delinquent and appreciating the evidence, the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be proved. Punishment was imposed solely on that basis. Compared to the gravity of the charges, the punishment imposed is minimal, and there is absolutely no necessity for the Writ Court to interfere with it.

6. The learned Single Judge, upon considering the submissions of both parties, allowed the writ petition, quashed the punishment, and directed the appellants to pay the arrears withheld on account of the punishment. Aggrieved by that order, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal.

7. We have heard the submissions of the counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

8. The charge framed against the petitioner is solely for dereliction of duty. The Inquiry Officer, after hearing the submissions of the delinquent and considering the materials placed before him, passed a detailed order. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the first appellant / disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment. The punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect is very minimal compared to the nature of the job entrusted to the respondent. The reasons given by the Writ Court for interfering with the punishment are not sustainable, especially when supervision was part of the respondent's allocated duties and he failed to perform them. When the punishment is not disproportionate and the inquiry is not vitiated, the Writ Court ought not to have interfered.

9. In view of the above discussion, the order of the writ Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the punishment imposed by the first appellant is upheld.

10. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 15-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli To

1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Police IV) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

2. The Superintendent of Police Chengai East Dist, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai 16.

3. The Enquiry Officer Deputy Commissioner of Police, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai City, Chennai 16.

4. The Joint Commissioner of Police South Zone, Chennai 16. Pre-Delivery Judgment in WA No. 498 of 2024 15-09-2026