Mr.E.Ilaiyaraja, S/O.Ettiyar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 23.09.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P. No.23357 of 2018 (Through Video Conferencing) E.Ilaiyaraja

...Petitioner

vs

1. State of Tamilnadu rep.by its Secretary, (Home , Police-III) Deaprtment, The Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2. The Addl.Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Chennai-4.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, Villupuram.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records and quashing the impugned order of 1st respondent vide G.O.(D)No.122 dated 31.01.2018 Home (Pol.IV A) Department confirming the order of punishment of postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect passed by the 3rd respondent vide his order dated 28.07.2014 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant proper seniority to the petitioner with all attendant benefits within time frame.

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Government Advocate.

O R D E R

The petitioner was serving as Grade-II Police Constable. The petitioner participated in the direct recruitment for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on 01.02.2011. During the interregnum, he was involved with a lady belonging to the same community. However, the relationship did not result in a matrimony between them. The lady lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram against the petitioner for allegedly deceiving her.

2. A disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner which culminated in a punishment of "Compulsory Retirement from services" after the petitioner was recruited as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 01.02.2011.

3. Challenging the said punishment, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent viz., Additional Director General of Police on 11.07.2013 and prayed for cancellation of punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" imposed on the petitioner.

4. The above said punishment was set aside the order of the 3rd respondent vide order dated 17.07.2014, with a liberty to pass afresh order which could be implementable. The petitioner was later awarded within the punishment of " Postponement of his next increment for a period of three years which shall operate to postpone his future increments" and was taken back into service with immediate effect by the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram vide proceedings dated 28.07.2014.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before the 1st respondent. Vide G.O.(2D) No.122, Home (Pol.IVA) Department, dated 31.01.2018 the 1st respondent confirmed the orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and thus rejected P.R.No.13 of 2013.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was nothing but a harassment. It is the petitioner's batchmate were given promotion whereas the petitioner was left behind. It is the case of the petitioner that the defacto complainant (lady) has also settled in matrimony. A copy of the marriage invitation was filed to substantiate the same. It is submitted that based on the complaint of the lady, the third respondent issued a Charge Memo dated 14.03.2013 to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the charges were proved against the petitioner.

The Disciplinary Authority viz., the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram

affirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer by holding that the charge was proved and imposed the punishment of " Compulsory Retirement" of the petitioner from the service.

7. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant could not take place because there was no agreement between the petitioner's parents and the defacto complainant's parents and therefore, there is no question of petitioner being held guilty for any indiscretion between them.

8. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order holding loss of three increments with cumulative effect was nothing but a harassment and high disproportionate for the alleged offence committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses were examined in the departmental proceedings.

9. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was let-off with a minor punishment as otherwise, the petitioner would have lost his job as ordered earlier. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any relaxation. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has been given a lesser punishment, hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

11. The petitioner took advantage of his official position and got into a relationship with a lady and promised to get married to her but failed to get married to her. The lady almost went up to the extreme step and had attempted to commit suicide before lodging a complaint against the petitioner to the 3rd respondent. The fact remains that the petitioner was a Grade-II Police Constable when the episode took place. As a person in the uniformed service, the petitioner ought not to have got into a relationship with a lady by promising to get married to her and thereafter wash off his hands by stating that his family was not keen to get the petitioner married with the aforesaid lady. Had the said lady succeeded in her attempt to commit suicide, uniformed services of the petitioner would have been over.

12. The initial punishment imposed against the petitioner by the third respondent vide order dated 29.06.2013 compulsory retiring the petitioner from service was harsh. The 2nd respondent vide order dated 17.07.2014 in his proceedings had rightly set aside the aforesaid punishment. The 3rd respondent

had thereafter imposed the impugned punishment of " Punishment of his next increment for three years." The 4th respondent Superintendent of Police, implemented the order by reinstating the petitioner back to service.

13. The petitioner has not shown if there was any material irregularity in the procedure adopted by the respondents which rejecting either the petitioner's appeal or mercy petition. The petitioner has also not denied the fact that he was involved with the lady.

The punishment imposed is also not disproportionate for the misconduct committed by the petitioner.

14. Consequently, the lesser punishment awarded on the petitioner cannot be interfered . The petitioner has also not shown any remorse during the disciplinary proceeding. Rather he has been unrepentive for the disgrace brought to the service by indulging in a false promise to marry a person while in uniformed service. There is no merits in this writ petition. It deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar kkd To

1. The Secretary, (Home , Police-III) Deaprtment, The Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2. The Addl.Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Chennai-4.

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, Villupuram.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District.

+1 CC to M/s.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, Advocate sr 49171 +1 CC to The Government Pleader sr 49792.

W.P. No.23357 of 2018 AD(CO) SP(09/11/2021)