Police constable challenges departmental punishment order (postponement of increments) levied in absentia. Court holds interference unwarranted as procedure followed, charges grievous, and court was satisfied with lenient punishment. Writ petition dismissed.
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(MD)No.2450 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P.(MD)No.2450 of 2019 and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.1885 & 1886 of 2019
A. Gnana Jaklin Mary
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 4.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Zone,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
1/11
W.P(MD)No.2450 of 2019
Prayer:
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in S.O.No.46 of 2017 dated 04.05.2017, the order passed by the second respondent rejecting the appeal in C.No.A4/6810/AP/2017 dated 23.01.2018 and the order passed by
the first respondent rejecting the mercy petition in R.C.No. 105512/AP.2(3)/2018 dated 21.09.2018 and quash the same as illegal consequently directing the respondents to pay all monetary and service benefits to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for M/s.D.Deepamathi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan,
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed against the order of
punishment imposed by the third respondent in S.O.No.46 of 2017
2/11
W.P(MD)No.2450 of 2019
dated 04.05.2017 and consequently, the order passed by the second respondent rejecting the appeal in C.No.A4/6810/AP/2017 dated 23.01.2018 and the order passed by the first respondent rejecting the mercy petition in R.C.No.105512/AP.2(3)/2018 dated 21.09.2018.
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
Department. The third respondent issued a charge memo levelling three charges against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 17.04.2016. The third respondent appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police (PEW) Virudhunagar, as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner. After completion of the enquiry, the third respondent issued proceedings in S.O.No.46 of 2017 dated 04.05.2017 imposing a punishment by postponing of next two increments for 3/11
W.P(MD)No.2450 of 2019
two years. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was rejected in appeal by proceedings in C.No.A4/6810/AP/2017, dated 23.01.2018 by confirming the order of the third respondent. Against the same, the petitioner filed a mercy petition to the first respondent and the same was also rejected by the first respondent by order, dated 21.09.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
W.P(MD)No.2450 of 2019
learned counsel further contends that as the petitioner strict Police Constable, she has been targeted by her immediate superiors and she was made as a scape goat.
levelled against the petitioner are vague in nature and the respondents do not have any material to pass such type of punishment order against the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 also without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in proper prospective manner have rejected the mercy petition and appeal. Accordingly, the learned counsel sought to set aside the impugned orders and to allow the Writ Petition.
been filed. Basing on the averments in the counter affidavit, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are very grievous in nature and accordingly, an enquiry was ordered 5/11
W.P(MD)No.2450 of 2019
by the third respondent to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner under Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1955. The charge memo, dated 09.03.2015 citing 15 witnesses and including 23 documents were served to the petitioner and the petitioner received the copies by affixing her signature on 28.07.2015. The petitioner also cross examined all the witnesses examined by the prosecution side. As such the learned Additional Government Pleader contended that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that without furnishing the copies of the documents relied by the Enquiry Officer, proceed with the enquiry.
W.P(MD)No.2450 of 2019
and in fact the charges levelled against the petitioner is not in vague and there are number of documents proved the charges levelled against her.
and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the third respondent issued punishment order, basing on the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, basing on the three charges levelled against her.
7/11
W.P(MD)No.2450 of 2019
interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India into the punishment order imposed by the third respondent is unwarranted. In our opinion, the respondents 1 and 2 also rightly rejected the mercy petition and appeal submitted by the petitioner.
W.P(MD)No.2450 of 2019
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and she is not entitled for any relief sought in this Writ Petition.
14 . No costs.
closed.
07.09.2023
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No RM
9/11
W.P(MD)No.2450 of 2019
To
10/11
W.P(MD)No.2450 of 2019
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
RM
W.P.(MD)No.2450 of 2019
07.09.2023
11/11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a departmental punishment order imposing postponement of increments when the enquiry procedure was followed and charges were grievous.
Whether the appellants rightly rejected the appeal and mercy petition filed by the petitioner regarding the departmental charges.
Whether the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Gnana Jaklin Mary
The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Zone, Madurai
The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar
BATTU DEVANAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
