Superintendent Of Police v. A. Arulraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 08.03.2018 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.A.No.77 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 1.Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District Palayamkottai Tirunelveli 2.
2.Deputy Inspector General of Police Tirunelveli Range Palayamkottai Tirunelveli 11.
3.Inspector General of Police Law and Order Chennai 4.
..
Appellants Vs.
A.Arulraj .. Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to setaside the order dated 29.06.2010 made in W.P.No.2134 of 2007 (T) on the file of this Court.
W.P.No. 2134/2007:
Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India came to be numbered by transfer of O.A. No. 1422/2000 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records in P.R. No. 77/99 on the file of the first respondent and quash the order of punishment of postponement of increment for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect dated 17.6.1999 passed by the first respondent in Ref.No.C1/AP/60/99 dated 31.8.1999 and further cofirmed by the third respondent in R.C.No. 263551/AP 2 (1)/99 dated 9.12.99.
For Appellants : Ms.A.Sri Jayanthi Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.B.Vishnu Chelliya for M/s Ajmal Associates
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] The disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent on allegation that he has given asylum to an accused and made attempt to interfere with the course of investigation. The disciplinary authority after conducting enquiry, imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for three years which shall not operate to postpone future increments. The order was passed on 17 June, 1999. The mercy petition filed by the respondent was favourably considered by the Director General of Police. The Director General of Police by proceedings dated 28 March, 2002, modified the punishment into one of postponement of increment for one year, which shall not operate to postpone his future increment.
2. The respondent filed Original Application in O.A.No.1422 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which was modified by the appellate authority. The Original Application was transferred to this Court and it was registered as W.P.No.2134 of 2007.
3. The learned Single Judge scanned the entire materials and arrived at a factual finding that there was no basis for the charge framed against the respondent. The order is under challenge at the instance of the State.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that after modifying the punishment by the Director General of Police, the respondent was permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30 June, 2006. He was paid the terminal benefits by the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.
5. The core question is as to whether the learned Single Judge was correct in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings that culminated in passing an order of punishment by the disciplinary authority which was later modified by the appellate authority.
6. The learned Single Judge considered the disciplinary proceedings like a criminal proceeding and analysed the entire evidence for forming a different opinion than the one formed by the disciplinary authority. It is not within the province of the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to sit in the arm chair of the disciplinary authority and scan the evidence for the purpose of taking a different decision. The learned Single Judge virtually
conducted a re-enquiry in the matter and formed a different opinion and thereafter, set aside the punishment. We are not in a position to agree with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal.
7. The other question is as to whether we should restore the original punishment given to the respondent. The respondent during the currency of this appeal accepted the punishment imposed by the Director General of Police by order dated 28 March, 2002 and as a result, he was paid the entire retirement benefits.
8. While confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the modified order passed by the Director General of Police, we make it clear that the retirement benefits paid to the respondent shall not be refunded consequent to this judgment. In short, we confirm the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, we make it clear that this judgment would not affect the order permitting the respondent to retire from service and payment of his retirement benefits.
The intra court appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar gms To
1. The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District Palayamkottai Tirunelveli 2.
2.Deputy Inspector General of Police Tirunelveli Range Palayamkottai Tirunelveli 11.
3.Inspector General of Police Law and Order Chennai 4 +1 CC to Mr. Ajmal Associates, sr 17917.
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 18107.
W.A.No.77 of 2014 NRI(CO) SP(03/04/2018)