Madras High Court
The Director General Of Police vs R.Meenakshmi Sundaram on 13 March, 2024
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.2183 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.2183 of 2023
and
C.M.P.Nos.18724 of 2023 & 22219 of 2023
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai,
Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Joint Commissioner of Police,
South Zone, St.Thomas Mount,
Chennai - 600 016. ... Appellants
Vs.
R.Meenakshmi Sundaram ... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.5774 of 2017.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan
Page 1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2183 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) The State has preferred this appeal, as against the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.5774 of 2017, whereby the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect, imposed on the respondent was quashed.
2. The necessary facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
2.1. The respondent was working as a Head Constable in the Chennai City Police. In 2005, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) conducted an examination for selection of Grade II Police Constables.
While so, allegations surfaced that some police personnel had been involved in leaking the question papers for this recruitment exam. The Crime Branch CID (CBCID) conducted an investigation into the matter and ultimately, found that the question papers for the written exam conducted on 27.03.2005 and the retest for General Knowledge subject conducted on 01.06.2005 had been leaked. Several police personnel including the respondent were identified as being involved in the illegal act of obtaining and circulating these question papers.
2.2. The CBCID registered a criminal case and charge sheeted many police personnel before the criminal court. Parallel departmental proceedings were Page 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2183 of 2023 also initiated against the delinquent police officers. The charges framed against the respondent were (i) illegally obtaining and leaking the question paper for 27.03.2005 exam; (ii) illegally leaking out questions and answers for 01.06.2005 retest; and (iii) aiding some candidates appearing for the said selection by misusing his official position. Earlier, the respondent had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9609 of 2006 and obtained an order of interim stay on 07.04.2006, on passing any final orders in the departmental inquiry conducted against him. However, he withdrew the said writ petition. Thereafter, oral inquiry was conducted, where the respondent participated. The charges against the respondent were held as proven. The Disciplinary Authority, Commissioner of Police, awarded the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect vide order dated 31.10.2015. The appeal filed against the said order, ended in dismissal by the order of the Director General of Police dated 20.10.2016. Challenging the said orders passed by the appellant authorities, the respondent filed the instant writ petition no.5774 of 2017.
2.3. By order dated 20.12.2021, the learned Judge, citing the cases of similarly placed co-delinquents, viz., M.Maruthupandi and M.Arul, where the orders of punishment inflicted on them, were quashed, held that the punishment imposed on the respondent was discriminatory, and accordingly, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the punishment order. The relevant portion of the said order dated 20.12.2021, is extracted hereunder:
Page 3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2183 of 2023
"3. It is not in dispute that the alleged involvement of the petitioner under the charge memos are identical to that of the cases of M.Marudhupandi and M.Arul. In the case of M.Arul (supra), this Court had observed that the punishment imposed by the petitioner would amount to discrimination and accordingly the punishment was set aside. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
"5. One of the co-delinquent M.Maruthupandi, who was levelled with similar charges and whose name was also dropped from the charge sheet, approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.7118 of 2017, praying to quash the order of punishment and to grant monetary benefits.
6. In the aforesaid decision, this Court had observed that M.Maruthupandi, Dharmaraj & Mr.T.Radhakrishnan, I.A.S., were arrayed as accused in Cr.No.2600 of 2005. During the course of departmental proceedings, Dharmaraj, M.Maruthupandi were imposed with the punishment of Black Mark, while the co~accused Mr.T.Radhakrishnan, I.A.S., was dropped from the departmental proceedings. Citing this discrimination, it was held that the co-delinquent M.Maruthupandi would be entitled for all monetary and other promotional benefits. The relevant portion of the order passed in the case of Maruthupandi (supra) reads as thus:-
'6. Since the petitioner herein had raised the ground of discrimination alone for the purpose of setting aside the punishment, this court is not inclined to go into the grounds raised by him or to the findings of the Enquiry officer.
7. It is not in dispute that the co~delinquent, namely Mr.Dharmaraj was involved in the case in Crime No.2600 of 2015 and that after enquiry, his name came to be dropped from the charge sheet.
The petitioner herein was also similarly placed as that of Mr.Dharmaraj, whose name was also dropped from the charge sheet. Apart from the same, the alibi pleaded by Mr.Dharmaraj and petitioner herein are one and the same. There is absolutely no explanation as to how the petitioner was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and the co-
delinquent with similar overt acts, was imposed with punishment of -Black Mark-. In view of the absence of any explanation, the ground of discrimination gains significance.
8. Likewise, originally the FIR came to be registered against the petitioner for his involvement in the criminal case in Crime No.2600 of 2005, Mr.T.Radhakrishnan, I.A.S., was also cited as accused No.46 in the same case. A mere involvement of the Page 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2183 of 2023 petitioner in the criminal case had prompted the respondents to frame charges against the petitioner herein, whereas similar involvement of Mr.T.Radhadrishnan was ignored. It is stated that prior to framing of charges, the petitioner herein was placed under suspension, whereas Mr.T.Radhakrishnan in spite of his involvement in the criminal case, was not suspended.
9.The aforesaid two cases of Mr.Dharmaraj and Mr.T.Radhakrishnan would clearly establish that all is not well, in the manner in which the petitioner was dealt with the punishment unlike his co-delinquent and the other person who was involved in the criminal case. In the absence of any explanation to the same from the respondents, this court is of the affirmed view that the punishment itself awarded against the petitioner cannot be sustained, on the ground of discrimination.
10. In view of the above observations, the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 in R.C.No.187406/AP IV (2)/2014 on the file of the first respondent is quashed. In view of the quashing of such proceedings, the petitioner shall be entitled for all monetary and other promotional benefits, which he would have been otherwise entitled to, in the absence of the punishment awarded.?
7. The petitioner herein is also similarly placed as that of M.Maruthupandi, wherein his name was initially shown as accused in Crime No.2600 of 2005 and his name was later dropped at the time of framing of charges. The action initiated by the respondents in imposing the punishment of Black Mark for the co-delinquent Dharmaraj and dropping the other co-delinquent T.Radhakrishnan from the disciplinary action, would amount to discrimination, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned.
Therefore, the petitioner herein, who was imposed with a punishment of withholding of increment for two years without cumulative effect, deserves similar orders as that of Marudhapandi's case (supra).'
4. The aforesaid decision of this Court is self explanatory. In the instant case, for identical set of charges, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of 'Postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect'. By applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, the petitioner herein would also be entitled to succeed and as such punishment imposed requires to be set aside.
Page 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2183 of 2023
5. In the light of the above observations, the impugned order dated 31.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Police, the 2nd respondent herein and the order of rejection of appeal Rc.No.5132/AP IV(2)/2016 dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Director General of Police, the 1st respondent are quashed. In view of the quashing of these punishments, the petitioner shall be entitled for all monetary and other promotional benefits, which he would have otherwise been entitled to, in the absence of the punishment imposed.
6. This Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs."
2.4. Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Judge passed in the writ petition, the appellant authorities are before this court with the present appeal.
3.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would submit that the charges framed against the respondent are grave, relating to leakage of recruitment examination question paper and tampering with selection process, which amount to criminal misconduct and corruption. The inquiry against the respondent was conducted fairly giving full opportunity as per principles of natural justice and the charges were held proved based on material on record. The punishment imposed on the respondent was lenient and not disproportionate to the charges framed against him. However, the learned Judge without examining the merits of the present case, erred in allowing the writ petition, by setting aside the punishment order, following the earlier orders passed in the writ petitions in WP (MD) No. 7118 of 2017 and WP No.43946 of Page 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2183 of 2023 2016 filed by the co-delinquents' cases. Hence, the learned Additional Advocate General prayed for allowing this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge in the writ petition.
4.On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the learned Judge, after analysing the facts and circumstances of the case and also following the earlier orders passed in the similarly placed delinquents viz., M.Muruthupandi and M.Arul, rightly set aside the order of punishment inflicted on the respondent and thereby allowed the writ petition, by the order impugned herein, which does not require any interference at the hands of this court. It is also submitted that the order passed in WP No.43946 of 2016 in the case of M.Arul, was challenged by the Government by filing WA No.1180 of 2022, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court, in which, one of us (RMDJ) was a member, vide judgment dated 03.01.2023. Therefore, the learned senior counsel sought for dismissal of the writ appeal.
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
Page 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2183 of 2023
6.It is not in dispute that the respondent faced disciplinary proceedings related to the alleged leakage of question papers for the police recruitment examination. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in the imposition of the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect. The respondent challenged the same in the writ petition, and the learned Judge, relying on the precedent involving co-delinquents viz., M.Maruthupandi and M.Arul, quashed the order of punishment imposed on the respondent and thereby allowed the writ petition. Therefore, this appeal by the appellant authorities.
7.The issue involved herein has already been considered by this court by judgment dated 03.01.2023 in W.A.No.1180 of 2022 arising from the order dated 12.07.2021 passed in WP No.43946 of 2016, in respect of the similarly placed delinquent M.Arul, which was followed by the learned Judge, while passing the order impugned herein. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:
"7. Now, the only point requires to be considered by this court in this writ appeal is, whether the learned Judge is right in allowing the writ petition by holding that the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority would amount to discrimination, as the respondent was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect, whereas his co- delinquents were imposed with the punishment of black mark and dropping of the disciplinary action.
8. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. In M. Raghavelu vs. Government of Page 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2183 of 2023 A.P. and another [(1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 779], it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the persons, who are directly responsible for the delinquency have been let off, while the appellant, who has been responsible for the charge indirectly, has been imposed with the punishment. In Para Nos.4 and 5, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:
“4. Mr. A.V. Rangam, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant was not factually in charge of the building construction, as admitted by the enquiry officer, and as a matter of fact, the persons, namely the Deputy Executive Engineer and the Supervisor, who were directly in charge of the building construction were similarly charged for identical misconduct and on the same set of evidence, though in different proceedings, they were exonerated of the charge. The Government who is the punishing authority, accepting the recommendation, exonerated them of the charge.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if the persons directly in charge of the construction work were found not guilty of the charge framed, the appellant, who was indirectly in charge of the work, cannot be punished for similar charge levelled against him. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and we do not think that the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the enquiry officer in this particular case has gone into the merits and has given different finding should be accepted. As pointed out earlier, on the basis of the same set of evidence the officers who were directly in charge of the construction work were exonerated of the charge and we see no reason to pick out the appellant alone for finding him guilty of the charge.“
9. In Director General of Police and others v. G. Dasayan [AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2265], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question of discrimination, if the disciplinary authority imposes different punishment to the delinquents in the departmental enquiry. This was recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para Nos. 8 to 10 and they are as follows:
“8. .............The third ground that the co-
delinquents except the Head Constable were let off though the charges were identical, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer so far as those two delinquents were concerned. However, the Head Constable, who was also charged along with the respondent, was compulsorily retired by the disciplinary authority.
9. Mr. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while agreeing with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on the first two grounds, submitted that the order of dismissal at any rate cannot be Page 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2183 of 2023 sustained and if at all an order of compulsory retirement as was made in the case of Head Constable, who was tried along with the respondent, has to be imposed.
10. We have perused the order of the Tribunal and the relevant documents. We find merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. At the same time, we are of the view that as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that a punishment of compulsory retirement in the case of the respondent as well would meet the ends of justice on the facts and circumstances of this case.“
10.Further, this Court, in R. Karuppannan v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board [1992 MLJ Volume I Page No.303] had dealt with a similar case. In that case, this Court, by placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in E.S. Reddy vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1550, held that when two persons are responsible, one alone cannot be made a scapegoat. This Court, after referring to the decision of the Hon-ble Supreme Court, mentioned supra, has held in para No.10 as follows:
“........From the above observations, it is clear that when two persons are responsible, one alone cannot be made a scape- goat. In this case, a reading of the punishing authority clearly shows that the Superintending Engineer has been let off pitying him, at the same time inflicting a punishment on the petitioner. In my view, this itself is sufficient to show that the order passed in this case offends Article 14 of the Constitution, and has got to be set aside on that ground alone.“
11. On going through the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the disciplinary authority cannot impose different punishment on the delinquents for similar charges. This is more so that the evidence relied on by the disciplinary authority to let off one of the delinquents and to use the same evidence to inflict punishment on the other delinquent. In the present case, one of the co-
delinquents, against whom similar set of charges were levelled, was exonerated from the entire departmental proceedings, but the other co-delinquents, including the respondent herein, were imposed with varied punishments and hence, the same would certainly amount to discrimination. Accordingly, the learned Judge has rightly concluded that the punishment awarded to the respondent herein cannot be sustained. We do not find any infirmity in such conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge, warranting our interference.
12. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. " Page 10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2183 of 2023
8.Admittedly, the respondent herein is the identically placed person as that of the respondent in the above appeal and both were subjected to the disciplinary proceedings for the same set of charges, which ended in the orders of punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Therefore, in the light of the above judgment, we find no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judge in the writ petition, warranting interference.
9.In fine, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
13.03.2024
rns
Index: Yes / No.
Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No.
Page 11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2183 of 2023
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
rns
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai,
Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Joint Commissioner of Police,
South Zone, St.Thomas Mount,
Chennai - 600 016.
W.A.No.2183 of 2023 &
C.M.P.Nos.18724 of 2023 & 22219 of 2023
13.03.2024
Page 12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis