Madras High Court
The Director General Of Police / vs M.Selvakumar on 28 July, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9315 of 2025
1.The Director General of Police /
Head of Police Force,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 4.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
Madurai City,
Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai,
Madurai District. ... Appellants /
Respondents
Vs.
M.Selvakumar ... Respondent /
Writ Petitioner
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 12:02:44 pm )
W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the
order passed in W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2024 dated 21.01.2025 on the file of this
Court and allow the Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The department is on appeal challenging the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2024 filed by the respondent herein. The respondent herein was appointed as Data Entry Operator in the Police Department on 14.02.2005. On 05.08.2013, he was placed under suspension. Subsequently, charge memo dated 06.04.2017 was issued. It contains the following article of charge:
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 12:02:44 pm ) W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2025
2.Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report finding that the charge against the petitioner stood proved. Copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner and further representation dated 03.08.2020 was also submitted. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 24.08.2020 concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The appellate authority confirmed the said order on 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 12:02:44 pm ) W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2025 16.04.2021. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 20.03.2024. Challenging the said orders, the delinquent filed W.P(MD)No. 15661 of 2024. The learned single Judge vide order dated 21.01.2025 set aside the orders impugned in the writ petition and directed the department to reinstate the writ petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits. Challenging the same, this Writ Appeal has been filed.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of Appeal and called upon this Court to set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow this Writ Appeal.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the order of the learned single Judge is well reasoned. He pointed out that the pen camera allegedly used by the delinquent for video recording was not marked as evidence during enquiry. He also would add that in the criminal case which was instituted on the same set of facts, the delinquent was acquitted. He further contended that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank & Others) is squarely applicable to the case on hand. He called upon this 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 12:02:44 pm ) W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2025 Court to sustain the order of the learned single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal.
5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
6.The core allegation against the writ petitioner is that he used a pen camera to video record a lady officer. It is also admitted that the said pen camera was seized by the prosecution. In that event, the said pen camera ought to have been marked during the enquiry proceedings. This was not done. It is true that the delinquent did not cross examine the victim officer. On that sole ground, we will not be justified in forming any adverse conclusion against the delinquent. We have been consistently holding that where the criminal prosecution on the same set of facts had ended in favour of the delinquent, the disciplinary authority cannot take any contra view. It is true that the acquittal judgment was rendered subsequent to the decision of the disciplinary authority. But then, the same can ought to have been taken note of by the appellate authority / reviewing authority. That was not done. The learned single Judge has correctly approached the issue. Interference with the said order is not warranted.
5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 12:02:44 pm ) W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2025
7.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
28.07.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
MGA
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 12:02:44 pm )
W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2025
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
MGA
W.A(MD)No.1663 of 2025
28.07.2025
7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/08/2025 12:02:44 pm )