IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 21.02.2011 CORAM :: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No: 8039 of 2008 and M.P.No. 2 of 2008 S.L.Michel John .. Petitioner /vs/ 1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police VI) DEPARTMENT, Secretariat, Chennai.9. 2. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.4. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore-18. 4. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Nilgiris District, Nilgiris. .. Respondents Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the orders of the fourth respondent herein passed in his proceedings P.R.No. 75/H1/2001, dated 15.4.2002 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent herein in his proceedings Rc.No.75/5679/D1/2002, dated 11.10.2002 imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from service, and further consequential order passed by the second respondent herein in his D.Dis.No.470/091135/A.P.I (1)/2006 dated 6.6.2006 and further consequential order passed by the first respondent herein in G.O.(2D) No. 262 Home (Police VI) department, dated 26.4.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and service benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Shanmugam For Respondents : Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Govt. Advocate ORDER This writ petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the orders of the fourth respondent passed in his proceedings P.R.No. 75/H1/2001, dated 15.4.2002 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.75/5679/D1/2002, dated 11.10.2002 imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from service, and further consequential order passed by the second respondent in his D.Dis.No.470/091135/A.P.I (1)/2006 dated 6.6.2006 and further consequential order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No. 262 Home (Police VI) department, dated 26.4.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 2. The petitioner is a ex-police constable, who was initially charged on 26.12.2001 for misbehaviour with the superior officer and a lady in a public transport vehicle. His statement of defence was considered and the enquiry officer gave a report on 24.2.2002 holding both the charges as proved. Based on the same, the competent authority/Superintendent of Police imposed the punishment of reduction of time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year. This order was passed on 15.4.2002. The Deputy Inspector General of Police reviewed the order of the competent authority and issued a show cause notice for enhancement of the punishment by proceedings dated 10.8.2002. The petitioner gave a reply on 09.9.2002 and on 11.10.2002. The petitioner was therefore compulsorily retired from service by an order of the third respondent. The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the third respondent in WP No.32087 of 2005 and by an order dated 12.4.2006, the Director General of Police was directed to consider the review petition filed by the present petitioner and that was considered and rejected on 6.6.2006. Further review to the Government was also rejected under G.O.2D No. 262, Home (Police-VI) Department dated 26.4.2007. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 3. The two charges against the petitioner viz., misbehaviour with the superior officer and with a lady in a public transport vehicle is a conduct unbecoming of a police personnel. On proved charges based on the finding of the enquiry officer, none of the authorities were able to find any error with regards to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ finding of guilt on the delinquency charged. All the authorities consistently have held that the delinquency is proved. This Court is therefore not inclined to go into the factual aspects of the charge or that of the findings of guilt. 4. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the punishment originally imposed and modified as compulsory retirement by the order of the Director General of Police is erroneous. In this regard, it will be relevant to record the view of the D.I.G. In his proceedings dated 6.6.2006, which reads as follows:- " I have gone through the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras and connected records carefully. The petitioner (viz.) Tr.S.L.Michael John, Ex.PC.869 has displayed highly indisciplined conduct by misbehaving with an officer in a disciplined force. Similarly his conduct with a lady has also been unbecoming of Police Officer and therefore his continuance in the department will spoil the image of police in the society. It is not that the delinquent has come to adverse notice for the first time but on 7 other earlier occasions he had transgressed. His deviant behaviour on all the earlier instances were viewed leniently and he was allowed to continue in the department. His consistently bad behaviour cannot be viewed leniently in view of interests of the department and society. His continuance in the department is not desirable. Dispassionately viewing the punishment only confirms that the punishment is fair, just and commensurate with the charges proved and it is not excessive. No fresh good ground has been cited by him to interfere. Hence, his review petition is rejected. " The Government has concurred with the finding of the Director General of Police and rejected the mercy petition, rightly so. 5. A plea has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while concurring with the punishment imposed, the previous case of deviant misbehaviour of the petitioner were considered by the Director General of Police and therefore, there is an error in the order of the Director General of Police. 6. This Court is unable to accept such a plea as could be seen from the order itself that the punishment imposed is for the delinquency charged viz., indisciplined behaviour to the superior officer and misbehaviour with a lady in a public transport vehicle. The finding of all the authorities is to the effect that the delinquency is proved and the department is not inclined to allow such a person in the uniformed service. Insofar as punishment is concerned, the action taken by the competent authority is found https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ correct by the Director General of Police considering the fact that there are seven previous instances of deviant behaviour, which would also justify the punishment imposed. The petitioner is unable to deny such conduct now and in the past. 7. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the orders of the departmental authority as well as the Government. Finding no merits, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ra To 1. The Secretary to Government, Home (Police VI) DEPARTMENT, Secretariat, Chennai.9. 2. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.4. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Coimbatore-18. 4. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Nilgiris District, Nilgiris. + 1 cc to Mr. Ravishanmugam, Advocate Sr.12493 + 1 cc to government Pleader SR.12591 WP No. 8039/2008 NSM(CO) EU 21.3.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/