In this service dispute, the High Court clarified the start date of a pay reduction punishment imposed on a police constable despite erroneous rule invocation, distinguishing criminal proof standards from departmental proceedings while dismissing the writ.
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.
W.P.No.16640 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.No. 16640 of 2016
1.B.Selvaraj, P.C.No.1219
... Petitioner
Versus
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for all relevant records relating to the impugned order in C.No.A2/Apl.26/2008 dated 29.11.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent herein, to quash the same as arbitrary, improper, unjust, thereby directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to set aside the punishment of “ Reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years and the period of reduction shall operate to postponement his future increments” imposed on the petitioner by the 2nd and
1/10
W.P.No.16640 of 2016
3rd respondent and consequently to provide all the consequential service and monetary benefits due for the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kalaivanan For Respondents :Mr.M.Shahjahan Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed in C.No.A2/Apl.26/2008 dated 29.11.2008 by the 2nd respondent herein, and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to set aside the punishment of “ Reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years and the period of reduction shall operate to postponement his future increments” imposed on the petitioner by the 2nd and 3rd respondent and consequently to provide all the consequential service and monetary benefits due for the petitioner.
2/10
W.P.No.16640 of 2016
upgraded as Grade-I Police Constable in July 2014. Initially, he was posted as Grade-II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Special Police, XIV(Guard) Battalion, Palani and thereafter, he has been serving as Grade-I Police Constable in K-7, Crime Branch, ICF Police Station, Chennai.
child and because of her sudden illness, the petitioner had requested 3 days Casual Leave to take his wife to the hospital for medical treatment from 27.11.2007 to 29.11.2007. During the time of the said casual leave, a false complaint has been registered against him in Crime No.810 of 2007 in K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station and three charges were framed. The petitioner had submitted his explanation to the 3rd respondent denying all the charges. According to the petitioner, he was acquitted in the criminal case in C.C.No. 223 of 2008 on 25.08.2008. Without properly appreciating his explanation, the authorities have imposed the punishment under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1955. Moreover, the impugned order does not even specify the time duration of the operation of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks for quashing the impugned order dated 29.11.2008.
3/10
W.P.No.16640 of 2016
4/10
W.P.No.16640 of 2016
are grave in nature, the punishment inflicted would be under Rule 3(b) subject to the charges being proved. In the event of any lesser punishment being inflicted on the charges framed, Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1955 would be applicable. The impugned order has been passed invoking Rule 3(b) whereas the punishment imposed is for a period less than three years, namely two years. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner on this ground itself the writ petitioner is entitled for relief as prayed. The writ petitioner also took this Court to the explanation submitted by him to each of the three charges and contended that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have not considered the explanation submitted by him and proceeded to impose punishment on the writ petitioner.
5/10
W.P.No.16640 of 2016
enlarged on bail. In so far as the period of punishment is concerned, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the same will not in any prejudice the writ petitioner since the punishment is imposed only for a period of two years, even though there is a reference to Rule 3(b).
6/10
W.P.No.16640 of 2016
departmental proceedings, it is otherwise and even a preponderance of probability would be sufficient to hold the charges against the delinquent official as proved.
7/10
W.P.No.16640 of 2016
scale of pay order having been issued on 20.09.2008, the two years period naturally commences from 20.09.2008 to 19.09.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner would be entitled to his regular pay and other benefits.
costs
08.06.2023
Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order nr
8/10
W.P.No.16640 of 2016
To
9/10
W.P.No.16640 of 2016
P.B.BALAJI, J.,
nr
W.P.No. 16640 of 2016
08.06.2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether invocation of the wrong disciplinary rule entitles the petitioner to quash the punishment order causing no prejudice.
Whether acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically absolves the accused from departmental charges proved on probability standard.
Whether the impugned order failing to specify the start date of the punishment period renders it vague and liable to be set aside.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
B. Selvaraj
The Director General of Police, Administration, Chennai
The Inspector-General of Police, Armed Police, Trichy
The Commandant-II, Tamil Nadu Special Police XIV Battalion, Palain
P.B. BALAJI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
