1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 19.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.(MD) No.9151 of 2012
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012

Manikandan … Petitioner
vs.

1.The Director General of Police
Mylapore, Chennai

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Trichy Range, Trichy

3.The Superintendant of Police
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District … Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution of India for

issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to

the order passed by the third respondent in D.No.479 of 2012 in

K1/PR354/2011 dated 28.03.2012 and quash the same and consequently

direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith and

further to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary and all other

service benefits from 15.09.2011 to till date.

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian
For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan
Government Advocate

ORDER

The order of removal from service issued by the third respondent in

proceedings dated 28.03.2012 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was working as Police Constable Grade-II and

on account of registration of a criminal case, he was placed under suspension

and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The criminal Court

of law, by Judgment dated 09.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.449 of 2012,

convicted the writ petitioner for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C., and

sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a

fine of Rs.10,000/- and for the offence under Section 417 I.P.C., he was

sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.

5,000/-. Based on the said conviction, the writ petitioner was removed from

service in proceedings dated 28.03.2012 issued by the third respondent. The

writ petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.697 of 2013 and this Court

allowed the criminal appeal on 08.04.2014 and set aside the order of

conviction.

http://www.judis.nic.in
3

3. This Court is of the considered opinion that mere acquittal in a

criminal case would not confer any right on the employee to claim exoneration

from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Even in case of acquittal, the

departmental disciplinary proceedings can be continued in accordance with

the Discipline and Appeal Rules.

4. A conviction under the Criminal Law requires a high standard of

proof. However, no such strict proof is required to punish the employee under

the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Even preponderance of probabilities are

enough to punish an employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Thus,

discharge or acquittal of an employee from the criminal case will not grant him

an automatic exoneration from the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

This being the legal principles settled, the order of removal from service

impugned dated 28.03.2012 issued solely based on the order of conviction is

liable to be set aside. However, the same will not prevent the competent

Disciplinary Authority to restore the departmental disciplinary proceedings

and proceed with the same in accordance with the procedures contemplated

under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

5. The allegations against the writ petitioner were undoubtedly

serious in nature. Though he was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences

under Sections 376 and Section417 I.P.C., he was granted with an order of acquittal

in the criminal appeal. In respect of the misconduct or otherwise, the

Disciplinary Authority is empowered to conduct an independent enquiry by

following the procedures contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.

6. A public servant has to maintain good conduct throughout his

service. A Policeman, who is in uniformed services, is bound to maintain good

conduct both on duty as well as not in duty. Every public servant has to

maintain good conduct and in the event of misconduct or otherwise, the

authorities competent are empowered to invoke the provisions of the Conduct

Rules and institute departmental disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the order of

acquittal now granted in favour of the writ petitioner in the criminal appeal

will not prevent the competent Disciplinary Authority to institute departmental

disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of the Discipline and Appeal

Rules. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings can be done, if sufficient

materials are available on record. In the event of non-availability of material,

the departmental disciplinary proceedings can be dropped and all suitable

actions can be taken to issue further orders with reference to the Judgment of

the High Court passed in the criminal appeal.

http://www.judis.nic.in
5

7. This being the factum of the case, the impugned order of removal

from service passed by the third respondent, in proceedings dated 28.03.2012

is quashed. The respondents are directed to review the case of the writ

petitioner with reference to the Judgment, dated 08.04.2014, passed by this

Court in Crl.A.No.697 of 2013 and consider the materials available on record

in the matter of departmental disciplinary proceedings and accordingly, pass

suitable orders either to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings or

drop the same in accordance with the procedures contemplated, within a

period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.06.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No

krk

To:

1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Trichy Range, Trichy.

3.The Superintendant of Police,
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

http://www.judis.nic.in
6

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

krk

W.P.(MD) No.9151 of 2012
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012

19.06.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in