IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.5075 of 2007 (OA.No.9330 of 2000) K.Yoganand .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Dy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai. 2.The Dy Supdt of Police, Koonoor Sub-Divn, Koonoor, Nilgiris District. ... Respondents Prayer:O.A.No.9330 of 2000 has been preferred before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this Court renumbered as W.P.No.5075 of 2007 praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order in A2/PR36/99 (10/97 of Nilgiris Dist) dated 29.12.99 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali,G.A. O R D E R The petitioner, who was working as a Grade II Police Constable attached to the Paramakudi Traffic Police Station filed O.A.No.9330 of 2000, challenging an order dated 29.12.1999 passed by the DIG of Police, Madurai Range, in imposing a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect. 2. The Original Application was admitted on 20.12.2000. Pending the Original Application, the Tribunal did not grant any interim order though a prayer to that effect was made. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.5075 of 2007. 4. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.R.10/97 on the allegation that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.7,200/- on four occasions during the period from 17.03.1992 to 30.03.1993 from one Dr.R.Ravi Thilagaraj and his wife R.Latha in order to meet the expenditure for the recovery of stolen jewellery from their house at Kothagiri. After the receipt of the charge memo issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris, the petitioner gave a representation dated 20.10.1997, seeking for copies of the relevant documents before proceeding with the enquiry. 5. The petitioner filed O.A.No.2263 of 1998 before the Tribunal seeking for a direction to the respondents to furnish him all the documents mentioned in his representation dated 20.10.1997. The Tribunal gave a direction to pass an order on the representation dated 20.10.1997 sent by the petitioner. The petitioner made a further representation dated 04.04.1998 stating that without furnishing the documents, enquiry should not be proceeded. He once again filed O.A.No.3693 of 1998 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the disposal of the representation. 6. The second respondent was appointed as an Enquiry officer. He informed the petitioner that the Superintendent of Police had already given him all the available records and he was asked to peruse those records. The petitioner filed yet another OA before the Tribunal stating that the order dated 19.07.1999 passed by the Enquiry Officer should be set aside and a direction to give copies of the documents should be made. The Tribunal did not even think fit to number the Original Application. The said OA was dismissed at the Diary stage by an order dated 01.09.1999. The Tribunal held that the grounds urged were not fit enough to quash the said order. 7. The second respondent after conducting the enquiry gave a final report dated 23.09.1999. He held that the demand and acceptance of money from P.W.1 Doctor was proved. He also further held the corroborative evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.10 supported by Exs.P1 to P3 was a clear indication of the petitioner demanding bribe. 8. On the basis of the said findings, the first respondent DIG of Police, by an order dated 12.01.2000 agreed with the report and on finding that the petitioner was guilty, imposed the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect. Though the petitioner was eligible to file a statutory appeal, he did not do so. After getting waiver of the appellate remedy, he filed the Original Application. 9. The contention raised by the petitioner was that he was not furnished with copies of documents which were relied upon by the Department. Therefore, the enquiry was vitiated. In the absence of copies being furnished, he has been denied the opportunity of facing the enquiry. Ex.D2 is a defence document in which, it was indicated that he was in the Law and Order wing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ during that time. Therefore, it would have been impossible for him to have visited the house of Doctor couple viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2. However, the Enquiry Officer found that P.W.1 was a well educated and a practising Doctor had deposed that he had paid Rs.7,200/- in four occasions. P.W.1's wife and his mother have also informed about the petitioner's visit to their house. With reference to the copy of the CD, marked as Ex.D2, P.W.10 Gowthaman, during the oral enquiry confirmed the petitioner leaving the station and the CD entries Exs.D1 to D4 does not show the case set up by the petitioner in the light of the overwhelming evidence given by the witnesses. 10. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Praveen Bhatia v. Union of India reported in (2009) 4 SCC 225 has held that judicial review over interference with the penalty is extremely limited and the Court can interfere only when relevant facts were not taken into account. 11. Further, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu reported in (2008) 5 SCC 569 has held that a well reasoned order of the disciplinary authority cannot be interfered with on the basis of sympathy or sentiment. Once procedural formalities are complied with by the authorities, the Courts should ordinarily not to disturb with the penalty. It is necessary to refer the following passages found in paragraphs 20 and 21, which are as follows: "20. The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. (See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal; State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra; SBI v. Mahatma Mishra; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi; State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Dev7.) 21. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. In view of the above, this Court do not think that it is a fit case where any interference is called for. Even though the charges levelled against the petitioner were serious, he was let of with a minor penalty. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar True Copy/- Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Dy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai. 2.The Dy Supdt of Police, Koonoor Sub-Divn, Koonoor, Nilgiris District. +1 CC to the Government Pleader Sr 17996 +1 CC to Mr.M.Muthappan Sr 18468 ORDER IN W.P.No.5075 of 2007 JP-CO KV- 30/03/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/