The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a police constable seeking reinstatement after removal from service for bigamy. Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence on judicial review of disciplinary proceedings, the Court held that the disciplinary authority's findings were sustainable and dismissed the 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.19581 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.19581 of 2021
A.Mariyayi
... 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 entire records of the respondents 2 to 4 in connection with the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceeding PR.No.D2.09/2011 u/r 3(b) dated 25.10.2011, order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceeding RC.No.C1/Appeal 09/2011 dated 05.01.2012 and order passed by the 2nd respondent in his
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.19581 of 2021
proceeding R.C.No.102608/AP 3(1)/2015 dated 28.06.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondent : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar, AGP O R D E R
Today, this matter has been listed under the caption 'for orders'. There
is no representation for the petitioner either in person or through counsel.
materials available on record.
Page 2 of 8
W.P.No.19581 of 2021
Police Constable on 01.03.2009 and thereafter, she joined Tamil Nadu Special Police II battalion Avadi, Chennai on 05.08.2009. Based on the complaint given by one Ravichandran, who was the first husband of the petitioner, a case was registered by the respondent Police under Sections 494, 506(i) of IPC. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri in C.C.No.44 of 2011. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, acquitted the petitioner from the criminal case on 20.01.2015. The petitioner had also filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the said Ravichandran in O.P.No.185 of 2012 before the Additional Famil Court, Chennai and the same was allowed and decreed on 05.09.2013. On the basis of the complaint made by the said Ravichandran, the respondent Police had taken a disciplinary action against the petitioner and passed an order of removal from service by the 4th respondent in his proceeding D2/P.R.No.09/2011 dated 25.10.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner gave an explanation to the Commandant, TSP II, Avadi, Chennai and the same was not considered. Against the order of removal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same was rejected on 05.01.2012. Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed a Mercy Petition before the 2nd respondent and the same was also rejected on 28.06.2016. Hence, the Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.19581 of 2021
service.
petitioner filed the present petition seeking to quash the order of removal from service.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that a detailed preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Assistant commandant III of the Tamil Nadu Special Police II Battalion based on the complaint of one Ravichandran, which revealed that the petitioner contracted marriage with the said Ravichandran and a male child was born to them on 06.11.2006. Without getting divorce from the said Ravichandran, the petitioner married one Balamurali on 01.02.2010. A fair oral enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commandant I of the Tamil Nadu Special Police II Battalion and the Enquiry Officer has proved the charges against the petitioner based on 8 witnesses and 15 documents. But the petitioner neither cross examined any witness nor denied any count of charge but requested to give an opportunity to mend her way. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the 4th respondent has awarded the punishment of removal from service. Thereafter, she filed an appeal and the same was rejected and her mercy petition was also rejected by the Director General of Police, Chennai. Without exhausting the remedy available to the petitioner in submitting a memorial petition to the Government, the petitioner has filed the Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.19581 of 2021
present petition. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022. 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
Page 5 of 8
W.P.No.19581 of 2021
the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of nature of justice. The findings 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.”
18.09.2024
vkr
Page 6 of 8
W.P.No.19581 of 2021
Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order
To
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
vkr
Page 7 of 8
W.P.No.19581 of 2021
W.P.No.19581 of 2021
18.09.2024
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings is valid and sustainable?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits upon challenging the disciplinary order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka v. UmeshRelied on¶40
State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Mariyayi
State of Tamil Nadu
Director General of Police
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Armed Police
Commandant, TSP II Battalion
Assistant commandant, TSP II Battalion
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
