Madras High Court
Mohanraj vs The Superintendent Of Prisons on 3 April, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 12.03.2025
Pronounced On 03.04.2025
`
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.33132 of 2015
and
W.M.P.No.36353 2024
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
Mohanraj,
S/o.Devasahayam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
2.The Director General of Prisons and
Correctional Services, Egmore,
Chennai – 8.
(R2 impleaded as per Order dated 20.03.2024
in W.M.P.No.8495 of 2024
in W.P.No.33132 of 2015) ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating
to the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28.10.2015 issued in
No.21359/P04/2013 and consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated
16.02.2024 issued in No.8198/EW-1/2019 and quash the same and
consequently to direct the respondents to treat the period of absence of the
petitioner from the date of suspension (29.05.2014) till the actual date of
Page No.1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm )
W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
superannuation (31.05.2014) as duty for all purposes with all consequential
service and monetary benefits.
(Prayer amended as per Order dated 18.11.2024 in
W.M.P.No.36352 of 2024 in W.P.No.33132 of 2015)
For Petitioner : Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Punishment Order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the 1st respondent Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
2. Meanwhile, the petitioner had also filed an appeal against the said Order before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by an Order dated 16.02.2024 confirmed the Order of the 1st respondent dated 28.10.2015 in his proceedings bearing No.8198-,lgps;a{/1-2019. Operative portion of the Impugned Punishment Order dated 28.10.2015 of the 1st respondent and the Impugned Order dated 16.02.2024 of the 2nd respondent dismissing the appeal of the petitioner reads as under:-
Page No.2/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015 Impugned Punishment Order Impugned Punishment Order dated 28.10.2015 dated 28.10.2015 (Tamil Version) (English Version)
5) ,e;j xG';F eltof;if 5) The minutes of the enquiry neh;tpy; tprhuiz mYtyhpd; officer was served to the epfH;r;rp gjpt[ Fw;wk; delinquent on 15.7.2015 and final rhl;lg;gl;ltUf;F 15/7/15 md;W representation was called for. The delinquent has submitted the final rhh;g[ bra;ag;gl;L ,Wjpfhg;g[ representation vide reference 3rd tpsf;fk; nfhug;gl;lJ/ Fw;wk; cited. In his representation, he has rhl;lg;gl;lth; ghh;it 3?y; stated that, he has not cross fhdDk; kDtpd;go jdJ ,Wjp examined the prosecution witness fhg;g[ tpsf;fj;jpid mspj;Js;shh;/ and because of the enquiry officer mjpy; neh;Kf tprhuiz. muR has proved the charges against him.
jug;g[ rhl;rpfs; kw;Wk; He has stated that, he is charged because of his situation.
Mtz';fspd; efy; jdf;F
tH';fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk;. neh;Kf
tprhuizapy; muR jug;g[
rhl;rpfis jhd; FWf;F
tprhuiz bra;atpy;iybad;Wk;
mjdhy; jhd; Fw;wthsp vd
tprhuiz mYtyh; epfH;r;rp
gjptpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh; vd;Wk;.
Mdhy; jhd; epuguhjp vd;Wk;.
re;jh;g;g R{H;epiy fhuzkhf
Fw;wthspahf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhft[k;
bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ ,e;neh;tpy;
fPHf;fz;lthW
Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/
6) jpU/nkhfd;uh$;. Kjy; epiyf;
fhtyh; (jw;fhypf gzp ePf;fk;)
kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpg;ghizfs;.
tprhuid mYtyhpd; tprhuiz
epfH;r;rp gjpt[fs;. tprhuiz
Page No.3/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm )
W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
Impugned Punishment Order Impugned Punishment Order
dated 28.10.2015 dated 28.10.2015
(Tamil Version) (English Version)
mYtyhpd; jPh;khdk;. MuR 6) In this disciplinary action case
Mtz';fs;. ,thpd; ,Wjpfhg;g[ Tr.Mohanraj, Grade I Warder tpsf;fk; Mfpait vd;dhy; ed;F (under Suspension), minutes of the ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ/ tprhuiz enquiry enquiry officer, findings of the officer, prosecution mYtyhpd; jPh;khdj;ij mg;gona records and the final representation Vw;W ,tUf;F ,k;Kiw of the delinquent were considered fPHf;fhdDk; jz;lid by me in detail.
tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ “He is Dismissed from Service.” “,tUf;F “gzpawt[” (Dismiss from service) vd;w jz;lid tH';fg;gLfpwJ/”
7) ,j;jz;lidapid vjph;j;J nky;KiwaPL bra;a tpUk;gpdhy;
,t;thiz fpilf;fg;bgw;w 60 7) If he wants to prefer any appeal ehl;fSf;Fs; rpiwj;Jiw Jizj; against this punishment, he may do jiyth;. nfhit rufk;. nfhit so to the Deputy Inspector General mth;fSf;F nky;KiwaPL bra;J of Prisons, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore within 60 days from bfhs;syhk; vdj; the date of receipt of this order. bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
8),t;thizapid fpilf;fbgw;wikf;F ,jd; gpujp efypy; xg;gkpl;L kPs rkh;g;gpf;f 8) He is directed to acknowledge gzpf;fg;gLfpwhh;/ the receipt of this order in the duplicate copy.
Page No.4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015 Impugned Order dated 16.02.2024
6) vh;zhFsk; ePjpj;Jiw Kjd;ik eLth;?1. ePjpkd;w Miz C.C.No.126/2018, ehs; 03/01/2019?y; fPHf;fz;lthW Mizaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ “The offence having been compounded with permission of Court, the accused are acquitted under Section 320(8) Criminal Procedure Code.
A1 and A2 present. CW1 present on 26.12.2018 and filed compounding petition, which in my view is voluntary in nature. Hence compromise recorded. A1 and A2 are acquitted u/s 320(8) Cr.P.C.” nkw;fhdDk; ePjpkd;w Mizapd;go g[fhh;jhuh; Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lth;fSf;F vjpuhf tHf;if elj;j Kd;tuhky;. jhdhf Kd;te;J compounding petition u/s 320(8) Cr.P.C. jhf;fy; bra;jjpy;. rkur (compromise) cld;gof;ifapy; tpLjiy bgw;Ws;shh;/
7) jpU/D.nkhfd;uh$;. Kjy;epiyf; fhtyh; vd;gth; kPJ bjhlug;gl;l 17(M)?tpd; fPHhd xG';F eltof;if neh;tpy; mtUf;F tH';fg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpg;ghiz vz;/21359-bgh/4-2013. ehs;/15/11/2014 kw;Wk; xG';F eltof;if bjhlh;ghd midj;J nfhg;g[fSk; vd;dhy; ed;F ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;lJ/ JiwhPjpapyhd neh;Kf tprhuizapy; muR jug;g[ rhl;rp?2 Mf cs;s fhty; Ma;thsh;. vh;zhFsk; fhty; epiyak; vd;gtiu Fwf;F tprhuiz bra;a mDkjp mspj;Jk;. ,th; FWf;F tprhuiz bra;atpy;iy/ tprhuiz mYtyhpd; epfH;rr; p gjptpy; ,f;fhtyh; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wr;rhl;lhdJ Kd;dhs; rpiwthrpaplkpUe;J gzj;ij bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;shh; vd;gJ epU:gzkhfpwJ vd jPh;khdk; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt. nfhit kj;jpa rpiw fz;fhzpg;ghsuhy; tH';fg;gl;l “gzpawt[” (Dismissal from service) vd;w jz;lidia cWjp bra;J MizapLfpnwd;/ Page No.5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015 Impugned Order dated 16.02.2024
8) ,r;bray;Kiw Mizapid bgw;Wf; bfhz;likf;F ,jd; ,uz;lhtJ efypy;. njjpa[ld; Toa xg;gkpl;L kPs rkh;g;gpf;FkhW nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/
3. The brief background of the case is that the petitioner was serving as Grade-I Warder in District Jail, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District during the period in dispute in the year 2012. It appears that while he was in Coimbatore, a person named Suresh who was a habitual offender, had allegedly committed an act of theft in a Train running between Bangalore and Trivandrum on 26.10.2012 and had allegedly handed over the proceeds of crime to the petitioner. It appears that he had stolen a vanity case of one Vijayalakshmi along with a Cellphone and cash of Rs.1,50,000/-.
4. It appears that the said habitual offender Suresh had confessed to the crime and had pointed out fingers at the petitioner and one Velusamy, a Cook with the Department. It appears that the said Suresh (accused) had handed over a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.15,000/- to the said Velusamy who was serving as Cook in the Central Prison, Coimbatore. Page No.6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
5. It appears that the petitioner was also in Coimbatore in connection with the treatment although there are no records to substantiate that he was in Coimbatore and was admitted as an inpatient in connection with the treatment.
6. Based on the Confession Statement of the said Suresh (Accused), the petitioner came to the Office of the respondents where the petitioner was serving as a Grade-I Warder wherein, the petitioner was assigned to pay the amount allegedly given to him by the said Suresh. It appears that the petitioner had also arranged for payment of the amount. It appears that based on the complaint of the complainant Vijayalakshmi, the said Suresh was arrayed as A1 whereas the petitioner was arrayed as A2 and the said Velusamy was arrayed as A3 in Crime No.113 of 2012 (C.C.No.126 of 2018) before the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.1, Ernakulam, Kerala.
7. The petitioner and the said Velusamy have also approached the Ernalukam High Court in Crl.M.C.No.2573 of 2014 to quash the aforesaid complaint in Crime No.113 of 2012 before the Railway Police Station, Ernakulam which was later converted as C.C.No.126 of 2018, pending before the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.1, Ernakulam, Kerala. Page No.7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
8. It appears that initially stay was granted by the Ernakulam High Court on 27.05.2014, and later Crl.M.C.No.2573 of 2014 was dismissed. It is noticed that just 2 days before the petitioner was to retire from service on 31.05.2014, the 1st respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on 29.05.2014.
9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the co-employee namely Velusamy was, however, not placed under suspension although he was also connected to the crime.
10. The case of the petitioner is that on 30.05.2014, the 1st respondent has also passed an order holding that the petitioner not to retire from service. However, no such order was passed as far as the co-employee Velusamy, accused of the same offence. On 15.11.2014, the 1 st respondent framed the following charges against the petitioner:
“Tr.D.Mohanraj, Grade I Warder, District Jail, Gobi (Previously Grade I Warder, Central Prison-II, Puzhal) (Under Suspension) has completed for more than 25 years of service and experienced of executive staff. While he was working as Grade I Warder in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, he got nexus with an habitual prisoner Suresh @ Sureshkumar. On 26.10.2002, Suresh @ Sureshkumar entailed in Train No.16321, Bangalore, Tiruvananthapuram Express and committed theft from Tmt.Vijayalakshmi, W/o.M.S.Prakash and handed over a sum of Rs.70,000/- to him. A criminal case was registered in Ernakulam Railway Police Station in Cr.No.113/2012 u/s 379, Page No.8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015 411 r/w 34 IPC and 147 of IR Act and he was included as A2.
Hence, he was placed under suspension on 30.05.2014 vide this office proceedings No.21359/G4/13, dated 29.05.2014.
2) He is well aware of the prison rules. These act of Tr.D.Mohanraj, Grade I Warder, District Jail, Gobi (Previously Grade I Warder, Central Prison-II, Puzhal) (Under Suspension) is contrary to Rule No.20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. He has committed a crime in which he can be charged under Indian Penal Code. A criminal case has been registered against him. His act is also punishable under Section 54 of Prisons Act, 1894. Hence, charges are framed against him.”
11. An Inquiry Officer was appointed wherein the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and therefore the petitioner was dismissed from service by the 1st respondent by an Order dated 28.10.2015. The said order was initially challenged before this Court in the present writ petition. Meanwhile, the petitioner compounded the offence before the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.1, Ernakulam, Kerala in C.C.No.126 of 2018 on 03.01.2019.
12. It is therefore the case of the petitioner that there was no case pending against the petitioner in view of the compounding offences in C.C.No.126 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.1, Ernakulam, Kerala and therefore the Impugned Order of the 2nd respondent dated 16.02.2024 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the Order dated 28.10.2015 was liable to be interfered with.
Page No.9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
13. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was forced to give money as he was placed under suspension just 2 days before his retirement and that the petitioner has clearly denied his involvement in the crime, alleged to have been committed by the said Suresh in C.C.No.107 of 2013.
14. It is further case of the petitioner that there is a large-scale discrimination at every stage right from the stage of the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as no disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against the said Velusamy. A specific reference is made to rebuttal in Clause
(d) to the Counter Affidavit of the 1st respondent dated 12.08.2016 wherein, the 1st respondent has stated as follows:-
“(d) With regard to the averments made in para (D) of grounds, it is submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.124 (P&AR) (Personnel-N) Department, dated 22.2.1986, when a criminal case is filed solely on criminal offence committed by the Government servant which is in no way connected with the discharge of his official duties, there is no need to pursue departmental action except placing the Government servant under suspension as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The ultimate departmental action can be initiated against the delinquent officer after the result of the criminal case pending against him is disposed of by the Court of law. As far as Tr.Velusamy, Cook is concerned, Page No.10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015 he is due for retirement on 31.7.2029. At this juncture, there is no need to take disciplinary action against Tr.Velusamy, who is having a number of service to retirement. If a criminal case is ending with conviction, he will be removed from service, duly following the procedures.”
15. That apart, it is submitted that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated if a person attains the age of superannuation and therefore on this count also the Impugned Punishment Order dated 28.10.2015 of the 1st respondent and the Impugned Order dated 16.02.2024 of the 2nd respondent are unsustainable.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and that of this High Court:
i. Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seeds Growers' Union Limited Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah, (2006) 6 SCC 548. ii. Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & others in Civil Appeal No.1334 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2070 of 2012) dated 13.02.2013.
iii. State Bank of India and others Vs. Navin Kumar Sinha in Civil Appeal No.1279 of 2024 dated 19.12.2024.
iv. The Director General of Police and others Vs. G.Dasayan, 1998 (2) SCC 407.
v. Vishwanath Vs. Union of India and others, 2007 (8) Supreme 331. Page No.11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015 vi. The General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank and others Vs. B S N Prasad in Civil Appeal No.6327 of 2024 dated 21.01.2025. vii. Vikesh Kumar Singh and another Vs. Director General Central Industrial Security Force and others in W.P.(C) Nos.13734 and 13907 of 2019.
viii.M.Chitra Vs. Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-4 and others, (2011) 1 MLJ 1214.
ix. G.Selvin Stephen Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Technical Services, Police Telecommunication Branch, Chennai-4, (2012) 1 MLJ 728.
x. C.Mathesu Vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and others in W.A.No.2017 of 2011 dated 26.04.2013.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that dismissal of the petitioner from service was harsh and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with as the petitioner has been deprived of all the terminal benefits if the petitioner would have reverted from the disciplinary proceedings.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that merely because the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in a criminal proceedings ipso facto would not justify either suspension of the petitioner or initiation of Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner and therefore on this count, the Impugned Punishment Order dated 28.10.2015 of the 1st respondent and the Impugned Order of the 2nd respondent dated 16.02.2024 are liable to be interfered with.
Page No.12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
19. He would further submit that the Full Bench of this Court in C.Mathesu Vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and others in W.A.No.2017 of 2011 dated 26.04.2013, has clearly delineated the position in Paragraph 28. A specific reference is made to Sub- Paragraph/Clause (xv) and (xviii). It is reproduced below:-
“(xv) If a Government servant has been placed under suspension and not permitted to retire even after his attaining the age of superannuation in terms of Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules, the enquiry against him can proceed, and in that case, if charges of misconduct are proved, depending upon the nature of the charges, even the extreme penalty of dismissal or removal from service can be imposed.
(xviii) In cases where the Government Servant is allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation or where the departmental proceedings are to be initiated after the retirement, there is no question of passing the order of dismissal or removal from service and only the pension can be withheld, withdrawn or reduced. The question of dismissal or removal of the said delinquent employee from service, therefore, does not arise.”
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Impugned Punishment Order dated 28.10.2015 and the Impugned Order dated 16.02.2024 are excessive and therefore the Court can exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Page No.13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
21. Defending the Impugned Orders, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that the petitioner had violated Rule 147 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Prison Manual Volume II). It is submitted that as per the aforesaid Rules, no prison officer shall lend money to borrow money from or incur any obligation in favour of any other prison officer or any prisoner or correspond with, or hold any intercourse with, the friends or relatives of any prisoner or have any authorized communication with any prisoner or with any person whatever as to matters concerning the prison.
22. It is submitted that as a Grade-I Warder attached to the prison, the petitioner ought not to have had any dealing with the habitual offenders and therefore on this count, the punishment that has been awarded to the petitioner does not merit any interference.
23. It is further case of the respondents that during the inquiry, the Sub- Inspector Mr.V.V.Ashok Kumar and Inspector Mr.P.N.Raju were examined, who had given a categorical statement in the form of evidence indicating the petitioner's involvement in the receipt of money from the said Suresh and that Page No.14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015 the petitioner did not chose to cross-examine them. Hence, the punishment was ordered on 16.02.2024.
24. That apart, it is submitted that as per G.O.(Ms.) No.66, Human Resource Management (N) Department dated 06.07.2022, order of acquittal if at all passed in the criminal case or in criminal appeal, the same would not affect the final orders already passed in the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings based on the departmental enquiry conducted in view of the fact that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be a ground for seeking exoneration from the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings. Hence, prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
25. That apart, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of this Court:
i. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and others, (2019) 7 SCC 797. ii. Ajith Kumar Nag Vs. G.M.(P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2005) 7 SCC 764.
iii. G.Krishnan Vs. The Additional Director General of Page No.15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015 Prisons, Egmore, Chennai and others in W.P.No.40001 of 2015 dated 23.06.2022.
iv. Paramasivam Vs. The Director General of Police, Chennai and others in W.P.No.1353 of 2017 dated 20.10.2022.
26. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents.
27. The facts have been narrated in detail. It does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in a judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
28. This Court is also not concerned with the decision per se. It is concerned only with the decision making process. In other words, if the Court finds any infirmity in the decision making process, the Court can set aside the Impugned Order and remit the case back to the Respondents.
29. The only other ground on which, the Impugned Punishment Order can be interfered is where the punishment imposed on a delinquent is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved.
30. In this case, the conduct of the Petitioner was clearly contrary to the Page No.16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015 mandate to Rule 147 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Prison Manual Volume II). Thus, the Respondents suspended the Petitioner on 29.05.2014 one day prior to his retirement as the petitioner was the Charge Sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.1, Ernakulam, Kerala.
31. Therefore, the Petitioner was also not allowed to retire on 30.05.2014. This was in consonance with Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules.
32. The fact remains that after the Petitioner was charge sheeted by the said Court, the Petitioner compounded the offence under Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 03.01.2019 in C.C.No.126 of 2018.
33. Compounding of offence under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall have effect of acquittal of the accused.
34. In the departmental inquiry, the Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Police Station, Kerala, who was examined as Witness No.2, was allowed to be cross-examined by the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner did not choose to cross-examine him.
Page No.17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
35. The charge against the Petitioner was that he had received money from a former prisoner. It cannot be said to have been denied merely because the Petitioner had compounded the offence.
36. There is no dispute that the decision of the disciplinary authority is based on the report of the Inquiry Officer. It also cannot be said that the Petitioner had been honourably concluded so as to efface the misconduct committed by him while he is in service with the 1st Respondent / under the 2nd Respondent Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Egmore, Chennai.
37. At the same time, the fact remains that the Petitioner has served with the Respondents since 1984 when he entered the Prisons Department as Grade- II Warder on 05.05.1984. Almost 28 years of service was without any blemish. Only on 13.01.2013, the Petitioner was implicated in the charge sheet as a co- accused along with the main accused Suresh (Habitual Offender) and co- employee namely Velusamy. This was just about 2 years before the date of his attaining the age of superannuation on 30.05.2014. Page No.18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
38. Considering the fact that the Petitioner was not involved in any other cases apart from the last mentioned case in his long career with the Respondents since 1984, I am of the view that the punishment of dismissal from service at the fag end of the career based on the confessional statement of the main accused in C.C.No.126 of 2018 is too harsh, particularly in the light of the fact that the Petitioner has also compounded the offence under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C.
39. Under these circumstances, the punishment of dismissal from service is modified to the one of punishment of compulsory retirement from service.
40. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is partly allowed by modifying the punishment of dismissal from service with the compulsory retirement from service.
41. The Respondents are directed to settle all the terminal benefits and other benefits which would accrue and payable to the Petitioner on account of the above modification of the punishment, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Page No.19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015
42. This Writ Petition stands Partly Allowed with the above observations. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
03.04.2025 Neutral Citation : Yes / No arb/msm To:
1.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
2.The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Egmore, Chennai – 8.Page No.20/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm ) W.P.No. 33132 of 2015 C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb/msm Pre-delivery Order in W.P.No.33132 of 2015 and W.M.P.No.36353 of 2024 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 03.04.2025 Page No.21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/06/2025 08:24:53 pm )