WA/3271/2023 of A.THEERTHAGIRI Vs The Director General of Police on 3 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

Krishnaswamy Govindarajan J. Since the issues involved in the cases are interconnected, the same are disposed of by way of the common judgment.

2. The Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order passed in W.P.Nos.31867 to 31869 of 2015.The said Writ Petitions were filed by the three appellants herein challenging the order of the first respondent dated 17.01.2012 and consequently seeking a direction to the respondents herein to disburse all consequential benefits to the petitioners.

3. The petitioner in W.P.No.31867 of 2015 was serving as Head Constable at Palacode Police Station, Dharmapuri District and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.31868 & 31869 of 2015 were serving as Head Constable and Constable respectively at Thenkanikottai and Uthangarai Police Stations, Krishnagiri District.

4. The common facts of the cases are that on 20.12.2007, the petitioners were deputed on escort duty for a murder case accused, namely, Iqbal Mansoori @ Iqbal Khan, from Salem Central Prison to the Additional Sessions Court, Krishnagiri and after the court hearing, from Krishnagiri to Salem Central

Prison. The prisoner escaped from the lawful custody of the petitioners under the guise of attending nature's call. Based on the said incident, charge memos were issued in P.R.Nos.18, 19 & 20/P2/2008 dated 10.07.2008 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 and the same were renumbered as P.R.Nos.51, 52 & 53/2008 on 21.07.2008 by the fourth respondent. The fifth respondent, who was the Enquiry Officer, had drawn the proved minutes dated 21.10.2009, holding that all the charges from 1 to 6 counts were proved as against the petitioners. On that basis, the second respondent, who is the Disciplinary Authority, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order of dismissal from service dated 05.05.2011 in P.R.Nos.258, 259 & 260 of 2010. As against the orders of dismissal, all the petitioners preferred appeals before the first respondent, who is the Appellate Authority. The first respondent, by proceedings in Rc.Nos.258, 259 & 257/15318, 15319 & 15317/AP2(2)/2011 dated 17.01.2012, modified the punishment to that of reduction in pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect and reinstated the petitioners into service forthwith.On the same set of facts, a criminal case was registered by the sixth respondent in Crime No.763 of 2007 for offences under Sections 221, 224 and 109 IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.97 of 2009 and the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem. As the prisoner had pleaded guilty on 15.09.2009, the case against him was split up and proceeded separately in C.C.No.150 of 2009. On completion of trial, the

Trial Court acquitted the petitioners by judgment dated 06.03.2015.

5. The petitioners pleaded that the Trial Court, in its findings, held that the prisoner did not escape due to negligence on the part of the escort police personnel but due to failure to provide 'Strong Escort' for the prisoner. In view of the findings of the Trial Court, the petitioners approached this Court seeking modification of the punishment imposed earlier.

6. The respondents contended that on 18.12.2007, Mr.B.Narasimman, Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, Krishnagiri had deputed Mr.Abdul Razzak, Sub-Inspector of Police and 25 police personnel from Armed Reserve, Krishnagiri to escort prisoners from Salem Central Prison to various Courts in Krishnagiri District in Krishnagiri registered vehicles. The Sub-Inspector handed over the passport and details of the above prisoner to the escort party and instructed that Police Bus No.TN-24-G-0076 is allocated for escort. The writ petitioners violated the escort rules by boarding the Dharmapuri District Police Vehicle i.e., Eicher Van TN-29-G-0359 which was bound for Dharmapuri District, instead of boarding the assigned Police Bus No.TN-24- G-0076 for Krishnagiri. On the day of occurrence at about 11.30 a.m., the petitioners got down from the vehicle along with the prisoner for lunch at a hotel, which is in violation of escort rules.

7. The respondents further pleaded that a week before 20.12.2007, a woman Constable by name Kalaiselvi was issued two bus warrants Nos.47188 and 47189. She used only one bus warrant No.47189 for return journey and returned the unused warrant No.47188 to Armed Reserve. The said unused warrant was obtained by the petitioners on 18.12.2007 and not returned to Armed Reserve. By retaining the unused bus warrant, the petitioners committed manipulation of police records.

8. It was further submitted that one of the petitioners, namely Madhavan, halted at Dharmapuri for personal reasons and thereafter only two petitioners, viz., Ravi and Theerthagiri accompanied the prisoner and boarded the bus at Dharmapuri and using the unused bus warrant, they had taken four tickets, including for Madhavan, and escorted the prisoner and produced him before the I Additional Sessions Court, Krishnagiri and got remand extension upto 21.01.2008. Later, they returned to Dharmapuri by TNSTC Bus No.TN-29- N-1732 and again took four tickets using another bus warrant.

9. The petitioner Madhavan, who had earlier halted at Dharmapuri, joined the other petitioners again at Dharmapuri bus stand, whereas petitioners Ravi and Theerthagiri halted at Dharmapuri bus stand and thereafter, the prisoner was accompanied only by petitioner Madhavan towards Salem. Taking advantage of the fact that he was escorted only by a single police personnel, the prisoner pushed the said Madhavan and escaped. After the escape, all three petitioners prepared a false complaint, based on which a case was registered in Hasthampatty P.S. Cr.No.763/2007 under Section 224 IPC on 21.12.2007 at 00.30 hrs. The above acts are in violation of Escort Rules and the instructions issued in the passport. Considering the serious nature of charges, the punishment imposed by the appellate authority modifying the earlier order is reasonable and does not warrant interference.

10. After hearing the counsel for the writ petitioners and the respondents, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 01.06.2023, dismissed all the writ petitions holding that acquittal in a criminal case would not affect the departmental enquiry and that charges were proved beyond preponderance of probabilities. Despite the grave nature of offence committed by the writ petitioners, the disciplinary authority had imposed punishment of dismissal which was subsequently modified by the appellate authority by taking a lenient view. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petitions.

11. We heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and the respondents.

12. Six charges were framed against the petitioners. The charges are of violating escort duty and rules, misusing bus warrant and not informing higher officials about keeping the accused at Dharmapuri instead of taking him to Krishnagiri District Court. Based on the charges, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer, relying upon various materials and evidence, came to the conclusion that the charges were serious in nature and recommended dismissal. The same was challenged by the writ petitioners before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has taken a lenient view and modified the punishment. The final order of the appellate authority is extracted hereunder: "I take a lenient view and modify the punishment into that of reduction in pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect and reinstate the petitioners into service forthwith."

13. From the materials available on record, we are able to understand that the petitioners violated the escort duty rules and various instructions given by the officials. They have also misused the bus warrants. The main duty of the person engaged on escort duty is to ensure that the accused does not escape and if he attempts to escape, minimum force has to be used to prevent such incident. Only for that purpose arms are given to the escort personnel. There is no material evidence on the part of the writ petitioners regarding the steps taken for preventing the escape of the prisoner while the prisoner was under their custody.

14. The main grievance of the appellants is that the criminal case ended in

acquittal and the same should be taken into consideration for modifying the punishment. The finding of the criminal Court has no implication on disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings are governed by separate rules and procedure based on preponderance of probability. Even though the criminal case ended in acquittal, as rightly pointed out by the Writ Court, the acquittal is not on the ground that escape of prisoner was not due to petitioners.

15. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia and others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 764 has held as follows. ‘’11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside.’’

16. Likewise, in another case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, the Supreme Court has held as follows: ‘’10. The fact that the criminal court subsequently acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. This is more so when the departmental proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings. The findings by the criminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domestic enquiry. An employee who allows the findings in the enquiry and the punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality by non-challenge, cannot after several years, challenge the decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal court has acquitted him.’’

17. In view of the above pronouncements by the Supreme Court, it is very clear that mere acquittal in a criminal case will not discharge the delinquent from the charges, since the disciplinary enquiry and criminal proceedings are on different footings.

18. In 2022 (6) SCC 563, State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh, the Supreme Court has categorically stated in para-22 regarding power of judicial review on the findings of the disciplinary authority and the said para is extracted hereunder: ‘’22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether:

(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;

(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;

(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and

(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and

(v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.’’

19. None of the conditions laid down in the above said judgment are attracted in the present case. When the charges are serious in nature and the main duty of the escort police is to ensure that the prisoner handed over to them is safely returned to prison, and having failed in that duty, the punishment imposed is a minor punishment compared to the serious nature of charges. There is no merit in the appeals and we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court.

20. In view of the same, all the Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 10-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli To

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

2. The Commissioner of Police Vepery, Chennai-7.

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

4. The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Hosur Sub-Division, Hosur.

6. The Inspector of Police Asthampatti Police Station, Salem.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. rli WA Nos. 3271 of 2023, 668 and 672 of 2024 10-09-2026