Madras High Court
WA/3251/2023 of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs G.MANICKAM (H.C 1719) on 28 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WA Nos. 3251 and 3256 of 2023
AND
CMP Nos. 26521 and 26529 OF 2023
W.A.No.3251 of 2023
1. The Commissioner Of Police
City Police Office, Madurai City, Madurai.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police
City Police Offfice, Madurai City Madurai
..Appellants
Vs
G.Manickam (h.C 1719)
Special Sub Inspector, E3 Anna Nagar Crime PS, O.D At SB C.I. D Madurai City, Res at Plot No 19, Arul Nagar, K.Puliyamkulam Village, Chekkanurani Post, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
..Respondent(s)
1. The Secretary To Government
Home Department (POL Vi), Fort St George, Chennai-09.
2. The Director General Of Police
Chennai.
3. The Commissioner Of Police
City Police Office, Madurai City, Madurai.
..Appellants
Vs
G.Manickam(h.C 1719)
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in WA No. 3251 of 2023 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in WP.No.16744 of 2007, dated 05.11.2020.
Prayer in WA No. 3256 of 2023 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in WP.No.16745 of 2007, dated 05-11-2020.
In both W.As.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.A.R.Suresh,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Manivasagam
For M/s.M.Manivasagam Associates
For Sole Respondent
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Common Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) State preferred the present intra court appeals challenging the writ order dated 05.11.2020 in W.P.Nos.16744 and 16745 of 2007.
2. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent based on the criminal case registered in pursuance to the directions issued by the State Human Rights Commission. Admittedly, the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent would mainly contend that the departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all the delinquent officers involved in the Human Rights cases and in respect of the co- delinquents, the punishment imposed by the department was set aside. On similar lines, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, set aside the order of punishment.
4. This Court is of the considered view that, once the co-delinquents are exonerated from the departmental disciplinary proceedings by setting aside the order of punishment, the case of the respondent herein alone cannot be singled out and he is also entitled for the relief as granted in favour of the co- delinquents.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader would raise an apprehension that the learned Single Judge made a finding that the Director General of Police has no review power under Rule 15A (1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
6. In this regard, the Full Bench at Madurai Bench of this Court in the order dated 14.02.2020 in W.A.(MD) No.686 of 2015 (Director General of
Police -vs- C.Vijaya Bhaskar) has ruled that the Director General of Police is empowered to exercise the power of review under Rule 15A. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder. “
43. On a literal interpretation of the word ‘or’ used in Rule 15A(1) of the Rules would certainly bar the review of an order of Disciplinary Authority, simultaneously by the appellate authority as well as the Head of the Department. When the word ‘and’ is not used or ‘or and ‘and’ are used as conjunctives, it is impossible to derive a meaning, which would favour the exercising of power of suo motu review by higher authorities simultaneously to review the same order of Disciplinary Authority. If the rule is so interpreted to pave way for Head of the Department or the State Government to review the order passed by the original authority successively, that will invite undesired results leading to multiplicity of proceedings or conflicting decisions. Such an interpretation will be against public policy insofar as Rule 15A(1) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, is concerned.
44. Considering the fact that the show cause notice impugned in the Writ Petition refers to the proceedings of the second appellant, dated 31.03.2011 and the second appellant, namely, the Commissioner of Police has not given any special reason relating to merits, we are of the view that the show cause notice, dated 25.10.2011 itself can be treated as a notice proposing to review the order of second appellant, dated 31.03.2011. We make it clear that the Head of Department or the State Government can either enhance or remit the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, while reviewing the order of the Appellate Authority or the Head of the Department, as the case may be, since the order of Disciplinary Authority merges with that of the Appellate Authority / Head of the Department. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.13611 of 2011, dated 12.07.2013 is set aside. The respondent is given an opportunity to file his response / explanation to the show cause notice, dated 25.10.2011 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such explanation from the respondent, the first appellant shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such explanation from the respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
7. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Director General of Police has no review power alone is set aside in view of the ruling of the Full Bench of this Court in the case cited supra. As far as the setting aside of punishment is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere, since the punishment imposed by the Department on the co-delinquents was set aside by the Court.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. KST
8. With the above observations, the above writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 28-08-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KST WA Nos. 3251 of 2023 AND WA NO. 3256 OF 2023