A dismissed Tamil Nadu Special Police constable challenged disciplinary orders punishing repeated desertion. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. Umesh on the limited scope of judicial review over disciplinary findings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
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.10691 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.10691 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.11321 of 2021
D.Periyasamy
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the third respondent proceedings made in E1/PR84/2017 dated 04.09.2017 and confirmed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.C1/18909/2017 dated 10.11.2017 and further confirmed by the first respondent in P.C.No.200341/AP.3(1)/2017 dated 27.06.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthappan
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.10691 of 2021
For Respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar, AGP
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed for quashment of the proceedings of the third respondent in E1/PR84/2017 dated 04.09.2017, the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.C1/18909/2017 dated 10.11.2017 and the first respondent in P.C.No.200341/AP.3(1)/2017 dated 27.06.2018 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all service and monetary benefits.
2.Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
3.The petitioner is a habitual deserter and the number chart with regard
to the desertion period of the petitioner is mentioned hereunder:
(i) 28.05.2014 to 22.01.2015 - 240 days
(ii) 21.02.2015 to 22.12.2015 – 305 days
(iii) 08.03.2016 to 16.09.2016 – 193 days (iv) 05.12.2016 to 15.12.2016 – 11 days
(v) 16.03.2017 to more than 60 days
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.10691 of 2021
4.The case of the petitioner herein is similar to that of the dispute which arose in the Civil Appeals in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 ( the State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh ). In the said Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the following order:
“17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of nature justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of nature of justice. The findings
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.10691 of 2021
of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not imagine upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.”
03.09.2024
vkr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.10691 of 2021
2.The Inspector General of Police, I/C DIG of Police, Harmed Police, Chennai.
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.10691 of 2021
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
vkr
W.P.No.10691 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.11321 of 2021
03.09.2024
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether disciplinary proceedings and dismissal for habitual desertion from police service should be interfered with under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The State of Karnataka and another Vs. UmeshRelied on¶4
C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 (the State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Periyasamy
The Director General of Police, Chennai 6
The Inspector General of Police, I/C DIG of Police, Harmed Police, Chennai
The Commandant, TSP VII Battalion, Pochamballi, Krishnagiri District
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
