Writ petition challenging removal from service order against a Tamil Nadu Special Police Force constable for writing an anonymous letter inciting association formation. Court held it cannot reappreciate evidence where findings were accepted by all appellate and reviewing authorities.
Writ petition dismissed; No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.16646 of 2007
M.Balachandran
.. Petitioner
-vs-
Egmore, Chennai 600 008
Egmore, Chennai 600 008 .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,O.A.3971/2003 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal came to be numbered as Writ Petition praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the proceedings C.No.982/74602/PR.2(1)/99 – P.R.No.72/99 dated 27.2.2000 passed by the third respondent, R.C.No.Appeal/PR.I(2)/17/2000 dated 26.4.2001 passed by the second respondent herein and C.No.29950/AP.I(1)/2001 dated 13.5.2002 passed by the first respondent herein and set aside the same as against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner with all service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner :: Ms.V.Pushpa For Respondents :: Mr.K.Ravikumar Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of removal from service dated 27.2.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Pudupet, Chennai, which was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, the second respondent herein in order dated 26.4.2000 and further confirmed by the Director General of Police, the first respondent herein on 13.5.2002.
the Commissioner of Police, the appellate authority and the review application filed by the petitioner before the Director General of Police also failed. Therefore, when the original authority, the appellate authority and the reviewing authority have taken note of all the serious charge proved against the petitioner that the petitioner had incited the members of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Force, which is unbecoming of a member of the Force, have passed the order of removal from service. Therefore, the same cannot be questioned on the ground that the respondents have imposed the punishment of removal from service, which is disproportionate, harsh and excessive.
-s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
ss To
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 23610. +3 Ccs to Ms.V.Pushpa , Advocate sr 22561 & 22718
W.P.No.16646 of 2007
KAN(CO)
SP(12/04/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should reappreciate evidence and interfere with the punishment of removal from service imposed on a police employee.
Whether the removal from service is disproportionate given the petitioner's unconditional apology and acquittal in a related criminal case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ranjit Thakur's caseReferred¶21
(1987) 4 SCC 611 · Who else cites this
M.Balachandran
Director General of Police Tamil Nadu
T.RAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
