The state of Tamil Nadu Vs M Arul Kumar

2.The respondent herein was appointed as Police Constable Grade II on 01.03.2008. When he was working as Police Constable Grade II at Courtallam Police Station, charge memo dated 25.07.2015 was issued. The charge memo contained two articles of charge. The delinquent is said to have demanded Rs.200/- as illegal gratification from the devotees who have come to take bath in Courtallam water falls. This is said to have happened at around 11.00 am on 21.11.2014. At around 14.15 hours on the same day, the delinquent is said to have waylaid two persons who were carrying liquor bottles and asked them to return the

¶25

2/8

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.A.(MD)No.1812 of 2025

¶28

same to the tasmac liquor outlet and encash the same and the encashed amount was said to have been taken as illegal gratification by the delinquent. On these two articles of charge, enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer gave a finding that the delinquent was guilty of both the charges. Eventually, the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 26.07.2016 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the delinquent filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli but the same was dismissed on 26.10.2016. The delinquent preferred review petition before the Director General of Police, Chennai – 4. The Director General of Police vide order dated 27.01.2018 dismissed the review petition also. Challenging the order passed by the authorities, the delinquent filed W.P.(MD)No.17089 of 2019. The learned Single Judge set aside the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner and allowed the writ petition on 12.07.2021.

¶29

3.There was delay of 1175 of days in filing the writ appeal. The delay was condoned by us.

¶30

3/8

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.A.(MD)No.1812 of 2025

¶33

4.The learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal. He pointed out that the delinquent who was appointed only in the year 2008 had committed as many as 13 acts of misconduct within eight years. It is stated that 11 delinquencies ended in punishment and five more charges are still pending. He tried to impress upon us that a person who is having such a negative track record ought not to be shown any indulgence. He also would add that the enquiry officer concluded that the delinquent was guilty of charges only based on evidence. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 (Union

¶34

of India Vs. Subrata Nath) in support of his contention that the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited.

¶35

5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner on instructions states that in the event of this Court sustaining the order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner would not press his claim for backwages

¶36

4/8

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.A.(MD)No.1812 of 2025

¶39

from the date of dismissal ie., 26.07.2016 till 12.07.2021, when the writ petition was allowed.

¶40

6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through

¶41

the materials on record. The charge memo dated 27.05.2015 contained the following two articles of charge:-

¶42

“21.11.2014 Njjp Rkhh; 11 kzpastpy; Fw;whyk; nkapdUtp ghJfhg;gpy; ,Ue;j NghJ ,dk; njhpahj ma;ag;g gf;jh; mUtpapy; Nrhg;gpid gad;gLj;jp Fspf;f Kaw;rpj;j NghJ mth; kPJ rl;lg; G+h;tkhd eltbf;if Nkw;nfhs;shky;> &gha; 200/Nfl;L ifa+l;L ngw;W fhty; Jiwapd; ew;ngaUf;F fsq;fk; tpistpj;j fz;bf;fj;jf;f nray;.

¶43

21.11.2014 Njjp Rkhh; 14.15 kzpastpy; Fw;whyk; lh];khf; filapy; kJghdk; thq;fpr; nrd;w ,U egh;fid topkwpj;J ifahy; mbj;Jk; Nkw;gb kJghl;by;fis lh];khf; filapy; jpUg;gpf; nfhLj;J gzk; ngw;W tur;nrhy;yp kpul;b ifa+l;L ngWk; cs;Nehf;fj;Jld; Xoq;fPdkhd Kiwapy; ele;J nfhz;l fz;bf;fj;jf;f nray;.”

¶44

7.During the enquiry, as many as six witnesses were examined in

¶45

support of the charges. We carefully went through the testimony given by al the witnesses. P.W.2 and P.W.3 who were home guards during the

¶46

5/8

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.A.(MD)No.1812 of 2025

¶49

relevant point of time did not support the charges. P.W.4 / Jamal, Inspector of Police was not even present in the scene of occurrence and he is not an eye witness. P.W.5 / Aravindhan, who was the Assistant Superintendent of Police during the relevant point of time is not an eye witness. P.W.6 also is not an eye witness. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 to P.W.6 cannot be taken into account. P.W.1 was the complainant in this case. He was carrying on his business in a shop in the vicinity. Even though in his chief examination, he appeared to support the charges, in the cross examination, he did not specifically implicate the delinquent. That is why, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the findings of guilt rendered against the writ petitioner rests on no evidence. It is true that the scope for judicial review in such matters is limited. But then, when the Court comes to the conclusion that the charges against the delinquent are not backed by any evidence, the Writ Court can definitely interfere. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner. We do not propose to interfere. The writ petitioner however will not be entitled to any backwages for the period from the date of dismissal till the date when the writ petition came to be allowed.

¶50

6/8

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.A.(MD)No.1812 of 2025

¶53

The order of the learned Single Judge shall be complied with by the

¶54

appellants within a period of ten weeks.

¶55

8.This writ appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.