1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.12434 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 M.Dhandapani ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director General of Police, Chennai 600 004. 2. The Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai 600 004. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram Range, Ramanathapuram. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent passed in R.C.No.139189/AP-1/2/2005, dated 02.02.2006 and the impugned order of the second respondent passed in Rc.No.198717/AP.II(3)2003, dated 18.10.2003 and the impugned order of the third respondent passed in C.No.B1/Appeal/21/2003, dated 04.07.2003 and the impugned order of the fourth respondent passed in P.R.No.49 of 2002 dated 04.04.2003 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with arrears of salary and all other monetary and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, Additional Govt. Pleader O R D E R The present Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order of the fourth respondent, the superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram in P.R.No.49 of 2002 dated 04.04.2003. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings initiated under Rule 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in P.R.No.49 of 2002 of Ramanathapuram District for the allegation which is given as under: "jkpH;ehL rPUilg; gzpahsh; njh;thizaj;jpd; K:yk; elj;jg;gl;l fhty;Jiw cjtp Ma;thsh; njh;tpy; fye;J 14/07/1998?k; njjp md;W https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 elj;jg;gl;l cly;jpwd; njh;tpy; btw;wp bgw;Wk; 19/07/1998?k; njjpad;W elj;jg;gl;l vGj;Jj; njh;tpy; fye;J bfhz;l ,uhkehjg[uk; khtl;lk; itif fpuhkj;ijr; nrh;e;j jpU/,uhkd;. J-bg/,uhkrhkp vd;gthplk; rhh;g[ Ma;thsh; ntiy th';fp jUtjhf Twp U:gha; 2.00.000-? (U:gha; ,uz;L nyl;rk;) nfl;L bgw;Wf; bfhz;lth; rhh;g[ Ma;thsh; gjtp th';fpj; juhky; Vkhw;wp mjpy; Kjy; jtizahf U:/25.000-? ,uz;lhtJ jtizahf 13/01/2002 md;W U:/50.000-?k; jpUg;gp brYj;jptpl;L kPjp U:/1.25.000-?j;ij ,Jtiu jpUg;gpr; brYj;jhky; ,Ue;j xG';f Pdkhd fz;of;fj;jf;f Fw;wk; " 2. Finally, the Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry. On completion of the enquiry, he submitted his report holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner in the charge memorandum stood proved. The Enquiry Officer viz., the Additional Superintendent of Police, Crimes, Ramnad in his minute dated 26.01.2003, has given a detailed finding that the petitioner has chosen not to cross-examine the witnesses 1 to 8 produced from the side of the Department. Secondly, it was also found that the petitioner has received the money of Rs.2 lakhs in the presence of one Mr.Mani and part of the money has also been returned. On that basis, it was found that the petitioner has admitted his guilt. With this finding, the disciplinary authority finally passed an order of removal from service. Subsequently, the petitioner also challenged the said order by filling a Writ Petition No.10998 of 2005. This Court by order dated 07.12.2005, by taking note of the fact that the challenge made against the order of removal from service cannot be interfered with, directed the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 05.05.2003 on merits and in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner's appeal also came to be dismissed by order dated 26.01.2003. As against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent and the same was also dismissed by order dated 04.07.2003. Aggrieved by the said order, further appeal was also filed before the second respondent, the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the original order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 04.04.2003 without challenging the order in appeal dated 04.07.2003. However, by taking note of the fact that the petitioner's further appeal was also pending before the Additional Director General of Police (Law & order), Chennai, finding that the original order dated 04.04.2003 cannot be challenged, directed the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 04.07.2003 on merits and in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai also in his proceedings dated 18.10.2003, came to the conclusion that the Review Petition i.e. further appeal did not contain any fresh points. Further, he also held that the fact that PR against PC 698, Mani has been stayed does not have any bearing on the disposal of this PR, since the charges are grave in nature. Hence, the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai declined to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram. Accordingly, rejected the Review Petition. After the dismissal of the Review Petition by the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Chennai, the petitioner again filed a Mercy Petition before the Director General of Police. The Director General of Police by his proceedings dated 02.02.2006, came to the conclusion that the charge was very serious, therefore, no mercy need be shown against the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come to this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not the petitioner alone who involved in the alleged charges faced the departmental as well as criminal proceedings. One another person called Mani who was also found responsible for the allegations, had received the entire money. Because, the said Mani had approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1530 of 2003 and the Tribunal stayed the departmental proceedings for the reason that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the departmental proceedings should not be proceeded with. As a result, the said Mani, who was the kingpin of the entire drama has been left out and he is working. On that basis, he pleaded that no action can be taken against the petitioner under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. This arguments do not carry any merits for the reason that when the petitioner himself during the enquiry has refused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses 1 to 8, the petitioner has miserably failed to establish his innocence or to bring home the charge against the said Mani. When the petitioner has committed a serious mistake in not cross-examining all the prosecution witnesses from 1 to 8, I do not find that his effort could be successful in challenging the order passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, who has declined to interfere with the finding of facts arrived at by the disciplinary authority and subsequently, the same also came to be confirmed by the Appellate and Reviewing authorities. More so, as there has been a finding of facts confirmed by the Appellate Authorities, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the finding of facts arrived, not only by one authority but by four authorities viz., Superintendent of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Additional Director General of Police and Director General of Police. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1. The Director General of Police, Chennai 600 004. 2. The Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai 600 004. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram Range, Ramanathapuram. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. +1. CC to Mr.Veera. Kathiravan, Advocate, SR.No. 37661 +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 37901 akv W.P.(MD)No.12434 of 2011 02.11.2011 TR : 28.12.2011: 3p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/