A police traffic officer challenged disciplinary punishment of withholding increments for two years with cumulative effect on charges of abetment of illegal gratification. The court held there was evidence of abetment and failure to report, and that the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate, dismissing 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.3450 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.3450 of 2020
M.Sivalingam ....Petitioner
Vs
Chennai – 600 002.
_________ Page 1 of 7_
W.P.No.3450 of 2020
Chennai – 600 002.
....Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the respondents 2 to 4 vide their proceedings in Rc.No.8444/AP.3(2)/2019 dated 12.06.2019, Rc.No.PR V(1)/86041/CPO/2017, PR.No.32/Tr.PR/2017 u/r 3(b) dated 01.10.2018 and PR.32/Tr.PR/2017 u/r 3(b) dated 30.04.2018 respectively and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilnathan For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of punishment dated 12.06.2019 by and which, “withholding of increment for two years with cumulative effect” was imposed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently submit
that, the petitioner had joined the police service on 31.10.1997, and that he
had unblemished service. Whileso, on 08.07.2017 from 07.00.a.m., to
11.00.a.m., he was assigned duty at “A” Road Junction and that during
_________ Page 2 of 7_
W.P.No.3450 of 2020 such time, there was heavy traffic congestion near the junction. In view of
the same, he cleared the traffic with the assistance of fellow police one Mr. Sivaprakasam and made sure that the public are safely walking through the road without any traffic congestion. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, however taking advantage of some false whatsapp video, the authority had illegally suspended him on 15.07.2017 and ultimately based on erroneous enquiry report, he was imposed with the impugned punishment.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that, even according to the management witnesses there are no evidences against the petitioner, as such the grave punishment of withholding of increment for two years with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and shocking to the conscience of the Court. Hence, prayed to interfere with the impugned order.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would vehemently submit that the Writ Court has got only limited jurisdiction to find out only to this extent whether is there any evidence available against the petitioner, and beyond that this Court cannot go into the appreciation of evidence.
_________ Page 3 of 7_
W.P.No.3450 of 2020 Besides he would contend that the punishment is proportionate to the
gravity of charges. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the either side submissions.
6. It is pertinent to mention that, whenever this Court exercise the power of Judicial Review, it has got limited power, and cannot venture into re-appreciation of the evidence, as the appellate Court. However, there is duty cast upon this Court to find out, to analyze is there any evidence against the petitioner.
7. Here, the charge is receipt of illegal gratification. The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court about the testimony given by the management witnesses; Admittedly, there are no direct evidence against the petitioner as to the receipt of illegal gratification. Even the video footage do not contain any such clippings. It is true that there was no complaint against the petitioner. It is in this background, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, when there were no material as to the receipt of any illegal gratification, the
_________ Page 4 of 7_
W.P.No.3450 of 2020 punishment of withholding of increments is disproportionate to the gravity
of the charges.
8. However, while looking at the charge, the charge is not for the
receipt of illegal gratification, but the charge is that he abetted to one Mr.Sivaprakasam. While perusing the enquiry report, there is a evidence for his abetment enabling Mr. Sivaprakasam to receive such illegal gratification; and he did not, though witnessing such illegal act, did not complained the Superiors. In view of the same, it is apparent that there are some evidences against the petitioner. In such scenario, this Court cannot interfere with the ultimate finding, even if there is a possibility for an alternative finding. Hence, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the positive findings given by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner.
9. Coming to the proportionality of punishment, the punishment
imposed against the petitioner is withholding of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Considering the gravity of the charges, this Court is of the view that the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate, accordingly, there is no merits in the present Writ Petition.
_________ Page 5 of 7_
W.P.No.3450 of 2020
10. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
28.10.2024
Index :Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order : Yes Sma To
_________ Page 6 of 7_
W.P.No.3450 of 2020
Chinthadiripettai, Chennai – 600 002.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Sma
W.P.No.3450 of 2020
28.10.2024
_________ Page 7 of 7_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was any evidence against the petitioner of abetting receipt of illegal gratification by a fellow constable.
Whether the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect was disproportionate to the charges.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Sivalingam
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home Department
The Director General of Police
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic (South), Greater Chennai Police
The Joint Commissioner of Police, Traffic (North)
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
