WP/22831/2023 of V.D.DINAGARAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 29 October 2026

ORDER

The petitioner was an Additional Superintendent of Police. Based upon the complaint given by one female Inspector of Police, an Internal Complaints Committee was formulated and forwarded a report with a finding that the petitioner had sexually harassed the woman Inspector of Police. Based on which, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 04.04.2020 containing three charges. Out of which, the first charge is on the basis of the sexual harassment complaint, and the charge Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential in nature. The Enquiry Officer, after elaborate enquiry has ultimately found that the charges 1 and 3 alone have been proved. Later, the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the Enquiry Officer’s report and passed the impugned order on 23.12.2022 imposing a punishment of deduction of Rs.1000/- per month from the petitioner’s pension for a period of six months. Aggrieved with the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the entire disciplinary proceedings was initiated in pursuance of the alleged sexual harassment complaint given by one of the “Woman Inspector of Police” (hereinafter called as “victim” for brevity and anonymity). The Enquiry Officer held that the sexual harassment complaint has not been proved. The third charge is based upon the counter blast act of the petitioner, so as to fix the

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

victim. According to the 3rd charge, he has requested his colleagues to write a complaint against the victim. The 3rd charge was also held to be not proved.

4. The only charge proved against the petitioner is, not taking action against the victim upon the complaint given by one male Inspector of Police. The charge is projected in such a way that he favoured the victim. To put it differently, in order to maintain or to have a cordiality with the victim, he did not take action against her. According to the findings, the Enquiry Officer has held that since the petitioner did not take any action in pursuance of the complaint, the charge is proved. In order to arrive at such conclusion, the Enquiry Officer has given a reasoning that having received a complaint against the victim, he has not issued show cause notice to the victim.

5. The petitioner has also enclosed the copy of the complaint. The copy of the complaint proceeds in such a way that since the victim did not perform her duty effectively and that she used to avail holiday on Saturdays and Sundays and thereby, the complainant one Mr.Raja Ram Mohan had to shoulder greater responsibilities. But, his complaint has not stopped with that. His ultimate prayer to the petitioner is, transfer of the victim and substitution by way of a male Inspector of Police. On harmonious reading of the complaint, his grievance is to transfer the victim. But, he has based his reason that she was not doing her duty.

6. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that each one will have different response to particular fact situation. What is essential is, to see whether the response made by an individual is a reasonable and probable response. In the case in hand, after receipt of the complaint on 09.05.2019, admittedly the petitioner has informed to Mr.Raja Ram Mohan that he has already informed to the DIG of Police and that the DIG would consider the request shortly. The conveyance of the said factum was admitted by Mr.Raja Ram Mohan during the cross examination and as a matter of fact, even on the date of his complaint, there were

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

vacancies of one Inspector and 3 Sub Inspectors. The complainant Mr.Raja Ram Mohan under whose complaint the 2nd charge was framed, admitted that the petitioner had taken action on his complaint.

7. It is relevant to once again mention that, in a letter given by Mr.Raja Ram Mohan, the final prayer sought by him was a transfer of the victim, which was taken care by the petitioner and the petitioner’s course of action was also informed to the said Mr.Raja Ram Mohan. It is not even the case/prayer of Mr.Raja Ram Mohan that the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the victim. But curiously, the Enquiry Officer has given a reasoning that the petitioner did not issue any show cause notice to the victim. It is relevant to mention that an Enquiry Officer cannot make out a case, which is neither pleaded by the Department nor sought by the original Complainant Mr.Raja Ram Mohan.

8. The above issue can also be looked at in a different angle. The very 2nd charge if at all to be taken as charge, could only be treated as a consequential one for the sexual harassment complaint. In the case in hand, the very sexual harassment complaint has not been proved. When such is of the fact, the 2nd charge has no foundation to have any positive finding. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer, which was later on accepted by the Disciplinary Authority is not legally sustainable. To put it differently, the findings with respect to the 2nd charge is perverse and the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Enquiry Officer have not at all taken into consideration of the available material of the admission made by Mr.Raja Ram Mohan. Therefore, the findings rendered in respect of the 2nd charge is liable to be interfered with.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. As a consequence, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 23.12.2022 is hereby set aside. No costs. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

Neutral Citation: Yes/No KMI To

1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Additional Chief Secretary To Govt., Home (police-i) Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Director General Of Police Head Of Police Force, Kamarajar Salai,

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 22831 of 2023 15-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

W.P.No.22831 of 2023 C. KUMARAPPAN

, J.

Today, the matter is listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In the first paragraph of the order dated 15.10.2026, while referring about the proof of charges, instead of referring to the second charge alone as having been proved, it has been inadvertently typed as “charges 1 and 3 have been proved”.

3. Hence, Registry is directed to replace the first paragraph with the following lines:- “ The petitioner was an Additional Superintendent of Police, Based upon the complaint given by one female Inspector of Police, an Internal Complaints Committee was formulated and forwarded a report with a finding that the petitioner had sexually harassed the woman Inspector of Police. Based on which, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 04.04.2020 containing three charges. Out of which, the first charge is on the basis of the sexual harassment complaint, and the charge Nos.2 and 3 are consequential in nature. The Enquiry Officer, after elaborate enquiry has ultimately found that the charges 1 and 3 have not been proved and the charge 2 alone had been proved. Later, the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the Enquiry Officer’s report and passed the impugned order on 23.12.2022 imposing a punishment of deduction of Rs.1000/- per month from the petitioner’s pension for a period of six months. Aggrieved with the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.” 29.10.2026 mrp

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )

C. KUMARAPPAN, J. mrp W.P.No.22831 of 2023 29.10.2026

( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:11 pm )