Police constable punished for growing a religious beard and taking medical leave; the court held the Madras Police Gazette permits Muslim officers to maintain a beard and quashed the modified punishment as disproportionate, remanding to the appellate authority.
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.10399 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021
G.Abdul Khadar Ibrahim ... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in C.No.D2(1)/PR98/2019/CPO.No.1006/2021 dated 05.06.2021 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthick, For Lajapathi Roy Associates
For Respondents : Mr.J.John Rajadurai, Government Advocate
W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in C.No.D2(1)/PR98/2019/CPO.No.1006/2021 dated
05.06.2021 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.
2.1. The petitioner was appointed in the post of Grade II Police Constable on 14.03.2009 and thereafter, promoted to the post of Grade I Police Constable in the year 2019. Belonging to the Muslim Religion and with utmost faith in his religion, the petitioner is maintaining beard by following the commandments of the Prophet Mohammed (Bukhari Volume 4 Chapter 64 Hadith 5892 and Chapter 65 Hadith 5893). The petitioner duly applied for earned leave from 09.11.2018 to 09.12.2018 (31 days) for the purpose of visiting Mecca and Madina for religious pilgrimage and the same was duly sanctioned vide proceedings of the Director General of Police, dated 07.11.2018. On completion of the religious pilgrimage, he returned back to office on 10.12.2018 for the purpose of extending his leave due to the infection
W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021
in his left leg. Therefore, on 10.12.2018, the petitioner reported before the office with medical certificate for the purpose of extending his leave on medical grounds. Instead of providing him with a passport, he was required by the duty Sub-Inspector to meet Assistant Commissioner and seek permission for availing medical leave.
2.2. Following which, when the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner was refused with a permission for taking leave instead which, he was questioned about his appearance and beard. While so, the 2 nd respondent, vide proceedings, dated 24.10.2019 required the petitioner to furnish his explanation for conducting a preliminary enquiry against him. For which, on 28.10.2019, the petitioner appeared and furnished his explanation for the preliminary enquiry. After a period of one year, the 2 nd respondent had issued a charge memo dated 30.11.2019 framing two counts of charges allegedly for not reporting duty after completion of 31 days earned leave and for taking medical leave from 10.12.2018 to 30.12.2018 and for maintaining beard against the mandates of Madras Police Gazette dated 05.02.1957. Following which, the petitioner furnished his explanation to the said charge
W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021
memo and thereafter an enquiry officer was also appointed in which the petitioner appeared, however, he was not allowed to cross examine the duty Sub-Inspector one Mr.Andavar who was a witness to the incident and the then
Assistant Commissioner who was also a witness to the incident.
2.3. Negating all the allegations of the petitioner, the enquiry officer had mechanically stated that the charges were proved, vide his minutes dated 12.01.2021. Following which, on 24.02.2021, the petitioner submitted his representation to the 2 nd respondent elaborating the defects in the enquiry. However, without considering the petitioner's explanation, the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect came to be passed by the 2 nd respondent on 23.03.2021. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1 st respondent. However, the 1 st respondent had modified the same with stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect, vide order, dated 05.06.2021. Challenging the modification order passed by the 1 st respondent, this writ petition came to be filed.
W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021
respondents submitted that the petitioner is a habitual trouble monger with his vicious disciplinary nature and this is not the first charge memo and he was penalised with umpteen number of disciplinary actions within a period of twelve (12) years in service and the appellate authority, that is, the 1st respondent had properly applied his mind and has gracefully modified the punishment from stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect to stoppage of increment for a period of two years without
W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021
cumulative effect, despite recording the admission of the petitioner with respect
to his delinquency in the enquiry and pressed for dismissal of the writ petition.
W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021
punishment passed by the 1st respondent is shockingly disproportionate. Hence, I hereby quash the impugned order bearing C.No.D2(1)/PR98/2019/CPO.No. 1006/2021 dated 05.06.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and remand the matter back to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021
8.With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
05.06.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Sml
To
W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
W.P.(MD).No.10399 of 2021
05.06.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate authority's modified punishment of stoppage of increment for maintaining a religious beard and seeking medical leave was valid and proportionate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Abdul Khadar Ibrahim
The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Madurai City
L.VICTORIA GOWRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
