Petitioner challenged disciplinary proceedings seeking reinstatement. The High Court dismissed the writ petition relying on the Supreme Court's order in State of Karnataka Vs. Umesh, holding the enquiry sustainable and findings not perverse despite criminal acquittal.
20127 of 2021
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.20127 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.20127 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.21399 & 21400 of 2021
D.R.Udhayakumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
4.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9.
... Respondents
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 on the file of the third respondent in his proceedings PR No.10/N (2) /2019 dated 06.02.2020 and the proceedings of the second respondent in RC No PR V (1)/20867/ CPO / 2020 dated 11.05.2020 and the proceedings of the first
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.20127 of 2021
respondent in RC No.535625/AP3(2)/ 2020 dated 27.03.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selva Thirumurugan 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 his proceedings PR No.10/N (2) /2019 dated 06.02.2020 and the proceedings of the second respondent in RC No PR V (1)/20867/ CPO / 2020 dated 11.05.2020 and the proceedings of the first respondent in RC No.535625/AP3(2)/ 2020 dated 27.03.2021 and to 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.
which arose in the Civil Appeals in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 ( the State of Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.20127 of 2021
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 of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.20127 of 2021
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.”
of the Civil Appeals filed in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022, in which the aforesaid order has been passed.
03.10.2024
vkr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.20127 of 2021
To
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.20127 of 2021
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
vkr
W.P.No.20127 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.21399 & 21400 of 2021
03.10.2024
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing disciplinary proceedings and directing reinstatement should be allowed in light of the Supreme Court order in State of Karnataka Vs. Umesh.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the findings of misconduct based on the principles of judicial review outlined in the Supreme Court judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The State of Karnataka and another Vs. UmeshFollowed¶29
C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022
D.R. Udhayakumar
Director General of Police, Chennai
Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar District, Chennai
State of Tamil Nadu
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
