The petitioner challenged disciplinary orders involving withholding of increment due to alleged negligence. The High Court examined the materials and concluded that the penalties were justified and no violation of natural justice occurred, dismissing the writ petition.
No order as to 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 : 15.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.No.31956 of 2004
R.Shanmugam ..Petitioner
Vs
1.The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur. 3.The Director General of Police, Chennai – 4. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the respondents 1, 2 and 3 in K2/PR.72/2000 dated 16.11.2000, C.No.D2/AP74/2001 dated 23.07.2001 and Rc.No.284205/API(3)/2002 dated 05.12.2003 respectively and quash the same.
For Petitioner : No representation For Respondents : Mr.K.Magesh
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The prayer made in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 in K2/PR.72/2000 dated 16.11.2000, C.No.D2/AP74/2001 dated 23.07.2001 and Rc.No.284205/API(3)/2002 dated 05.12.2003, respectively.
charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Based on which, the first respondent by order dated 16.11.2000 passed an order imposing punishment of withholding increment for one year without cumulative effective. Aggrieved over the same the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was rejected on 23.07.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the third respondent and the same was also rejected on 05.12.2003. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.
5.The main grievance of the petitioner is that without considering his explanation and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and without furnishing the enquiry report, the first respondent passed the order imposing punishment of withholding increment for one year without cumulative effective, based on the findings of the Enquiry officer. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate authority without considering the materials dismissed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before the third respondent and the same was also rejected by the Department. The impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned are non-speaking orders and it does not show application of mind of the authorities to the contentions raised by the petitioner. Hence the impugned orders are bad in law, which violates the principles of natural justice. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and hence, the writ petition may be allowed by setting aside the order impugned herein.
conducted. Further, it would reveal that the minutes and charge memo were furnished to the petitioner and thereafter, only explanation was called for from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not being satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed minor penalty. The nature of allegations, clearly shows that it is only due to negligence on the part of the petitioner.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ms
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagapattinam District.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Thanjavur Range,
Thanjavur.
3.The Director General of Police,
Chennai – 4.
+1 cc to The Government Pleader, Sr.No. 41323
W.P.No.31956 of 2004
SRII(CO)
RMP(20/01/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-speaking orders imposing minor penalties for negligence violate principles of natural justice.
Whether a charge memo was necessary when charges were minor in nature warranting a detailed enquiry.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Shanmugam
Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam District
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range
Director General of Police, Chennai
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
