H.Rajkumar Vs The Director General of Police

Prayer : Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the proceedings of the respondents in order passed by the first

¶15

1/14

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶18

respondent through review proceedings Rc.No.114253/A.P.1(1)/2018 dated 04.08.2018 by confirming the dismissal order passed in appeal by the second respondent through Na.Ka.No.8260/D2/13 dated 16.09.2013 in confirming the order of removal from service passed by the third respondent through his proceedings C.No./H1/PR80/2012 u/r 3 (b) dt 16.08.2013 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultra vir e s and consequently directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Head Constable with all back wages and monetary benefits within a stipulated time frame as prescribed by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatesah for Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamunadevi Special Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special

¶22

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the

¶23

records.

¶24

2/14

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶27

The case of the petitioner in brief is that he had joined the service

¶28

as Police Constable, Grade-II, through the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board on 16.04.1997; that he was upgraded to the post of Grade-

¶29

I Police Constable in the year 2007 and further, promoted as Head Constable in the year 2013.

¶30

The petitioner contended that based on the complaint made by

¶31

one Parimala on 17.04.2011, a police complaint was registered against him and further, on the basis of a motivated petition dated 19.04.2011, filed

¶32

against him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated; that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 16.08.2012, containing two articles of charge; that despite giving explanation, the enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges “as proved”; and that on the basis of the enquiry report, the third respondent issued proceedings dated 16.08.2013, removing the petitioner from service.

¶33

3/14

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶36

The petitioner further contended that aggrieved by the aforesaid

¶37

punishment awarded to him of removal from service, he had filed an appeal to the second respondent on 27.08.2013 and the second respondent, by his

¶38

order dated 16.09.2013, dismissed the appeal.

¶39

It is the further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the

¶40

aforesaid order dismissing the appeal filed by him, he had filed review before

¶41

the first respondent on 26.11.2013; that on the first respondent not disposing

¶42

of the aforesaid review, he had approached this Court by filing writ petition vide W.P.No.4858 of 2014 and on this Court disposing of the aforesaid writ

¶43

petition, vide order 31.05.2018, directing the first respondent to dispose of the

¶44

appeal/review within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the first respondent passed order thereafter on 04.08.2018,

¶45

rejecting the petition filed by him, seeking review of the order to the third

¶46

4/14

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶49

respondent in visiting him with penalty as removal from service, as

¶50

confirmed by the second respondent in rejecting the appeal.

¶51

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the first respondent

¶52

confirming the orders of the second respondent and third respondent, the

¶53

present writ petition is filed.

¶54

Counter affidavit on behalf of the third respondent is filed.

¶55

The third respondent, by the counter affidavit, contended that

¶56

based on the complaint submitted by one Ms.Parimala stating that the

¶57

petitioner represented to her that he was a divorcee and on the pretext of marrying her, lead a family life with her in Raj Bhavan Police Quarters at Door No.7, N-Block, for a period of 10 months and the complainant further

¶58

stated that she became pregnant; that the petitioner took her to a Doctor to

¶59

5/14

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶62

abort the foetus; and that based on the aforesaid complaint, orders were

¶63

issued to the Deputy Superintendent of Police to conduct preliminary

¶64

enquiry; and that the said Deputy Superintendent of Police, after conducting

¶65

enquiry, found that the allegations made by the complainant are true.

¶66

By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that based on the

¶67

preliminary enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Udhagamandalam, on the complaint lodged by Ms.Parimala,

¶68

the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu

¶69

Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, for the following delinquencies:-

¶70

(i) The delinquent Head Constable Tr.Rajkumar was

¶71

leading a family life with one Parimala in Rajbhavan Police

¶72

Quarters, N-Block, Door No.7 for a period of 10 months by

¶73

making her believe that he was a divorcee and he would marry

¶74

6/14

¶75

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

¶76

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶77

her.

¶78

(ii) The delinquent Head Constable Tr.Rajkumar

¶79

made Ms.Parimala pregnant even though his legally wedded

¶80

wife is alive and took her to Doctor to abort the foetus.

¶81

The respondent, by the counter affidavit, further contended that

¶82

on the petitioner being issued with the aforesaid charge memo, the third

¶83

respondent appointed the Enquiry Officer and a free and fair enquiry was conducted by the said officer. During the course of the enquiry, as many as

¶84

12 witnesses were examined and 14 Exhibits were marked on the side of the prosecution; and that P.W-1/Parimala clearly deposed in the enquiry that he

¶85

was a divorcee and that on the pretext of marrying her, he lived with her for

¶86

about 10 months in the Police Quarters.

¶87

By the counter affidavit, it is contended that the Enquiry Officer

¶88

7/14

¶89

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

¶90

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶91

having taken into consideration the submissions of the witnesses and the cross-examination done by the delinquent and the documents marked,

¶92

submitted his report stating that the charges are proved and the petitioner is found guilty of the charges.

¶93

By the counter affidavit, the respondent contended that based

¶94

on the proved minutes of the Enquiry Officer, the third respondent has awarded the petitioner with punishment of removal from service.

¶95

By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that the

¶96

petitioner thereafter, having availed the remedy of appeal and review to the second respondent, and first respondent cannot claim that the punishment

¶97

awarded to him is disproportionate or unjustified or that he was not subjected

¶98

to medical examination.

¶99

8/14

¶100

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

¶101

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶102

By the counter affidavit, it is contended that in order to prove

¶103

the charges in a disciplinary proceedings, preponderance of probability is to

¶104

be considered and not the strict rules of evidence.

¶105

Contending as above, the respondent seeks for dismissal of the

¶106

writ petition.

¶107

I have taken note of the respective contentions as urged.

¶108

At the outset, it is to be noted that the High Court, under Article

¶109

226 of Constitution of India, does not act as an Appellate Authority by examining the evidence, as to whether on the basis of the evidence, the delinquent can be visited with the punishment as awarded by the disciplinary authority or the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the articles of charge. The scope of review by the High Court under Article 226 of

¶110

9/14

¶111

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

¶112

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶113

Constitution of India in only relation to decision making process, but, not to

¶114

re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding with that of the

¶115

conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority, while awarding the punishment which punishment has also been upheld by the appellate

¶116

authority. (See: B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India ((1995) 6 SCC 749))

¶117

Though an effort was made on behalf of the petitioner to take

¶118

this Court through the chief and cross-examination recorded before the

¶119

Enquiry Officer to contend that the charges levelled against the petitioner are

¶120

not proved, it is to be noted that this Court in a Writ Petition under Article

¶121

226 of Constitution of India, cannot undertake the exercise of re-appreciation

¶122

or re-evaluation of facts or evidence, thereby acting as an appellate authority.

¶123

(See: State of Andra Pradesh Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao ((1975) 2 SCC 557)

¶124

In the facts of the present case, since the petitioner was given

¶125

10/14

¶126

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

¶127

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶128

sufficient opportunity to disprove the articles of charge; and the petitioner

¶129

having availed the said opportunity by cross-examining the witnesses

¶130

produced on behalf of the prosecution, the scope of interference by a Writ

¶131

Court on the limited ground of violation of principles of natural justice is also

¶132

not available.

¶133

The only other ground of interference by a Writ Court against

¶134

the disciplinary proceedings is as to whether the punishment awarded shocks

¶135

the conscience of the Court. In the facts of the present case, since, the

¶136

petitioner being a member of the Uniformed Service, ought to have conducted himself the manner befitting his service. The petitioner contrary to

¶137

the conditions of service, acted in a manner bringing disrepute to the force.

¶138

Thus, the punishment as awarded in the considered view of this Court, cannot

¶139

be said as shocking the conscience of this Court to interfere with the

¶140

same.( See: Union of India Vs. Subrata Nath (2022 SCC Online SC 1617)

¶141

11/14

¶142

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

¶143

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶144

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the punishment as

¶145

awarded to the petitioner is not disproportionate to the articles of charge nor

¶146

shock the conscience of this Court.

¶147

12/14

¶148

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

¶149

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶150

Accordingly, the Writ Petition as failed is devoid of merits and is

¶151

dismissed. No costs.

¶152

03.12.2025

¶153

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dh

¶154

To

¶155

The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶156

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore.

¶157

The Superintendent of Police, The Niligiris District, Ootacamund.

¶158

13/14

¶159

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

¶160

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶161

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

¶162

dh

¶163

W.P.No.3125 of 2019

¶164

03.12.2025

¶165

14/14

¶166

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

H.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Vennila Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Raja Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

Dr.P.Thambidurai Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Micheal Antony Vs The Managing Director

The Food Corporation of India Vs The Chief General Manager (Cpf)

R.Jothi Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.