(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition of WP.No. 27077 of 2008 dated 30.9.2022 and thus allow the Writ Appeal.)

Krishnaswamy Govindarajan, J.

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court.

2. The appellant filed W.P. No. 27077 of 2008 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.No.A4/PR 35 of 2005 – B.O.No.432 of 2005 dated 27.10.2005 of the second respondent, as confirmed by the first respondent in the proceedings in RC.No.79582/AP3(1) 2007 dated 04.05.2008 and consequently, to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of seniority, and all attendant service benefits due to the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the appellant that he joined the Tamil Nadu Special Police on 30.11.2003. After completion of training, the writ petitioner joined as a Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police X Battalion, Ulundurpet in cadre ‘C’ on 18.09.2004. The petitioner was sent to Vellore Prison for security duty.

4. It is the further case of the appellant that during that period, he met one Sujatha, D/o Subramaniam, while going to duty on the bus. After the said meeting, Sujatha regularly tried to meet him and developed close intimacy. Upon knowing her bad character and behaviour, the petitioner advised her not to trouble him. The petitioner was subsequently posted at Egmore, Chennai, in the control room.

5. On 15.03.2005, the said Sujatha came to the Control Room at Egmore and told the petitioner that she had come out from home after a fight with her parents and wanted to stay in the police quarters. The petitioner submitted that he pleaded his inability to accommodate her in the police quarters. Thereafter, the said Sujatha demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- or that he marry her, which was refused by the petitioner. Subsequently, a false police complaint was lodged before the All Women Police Station, Vellore in Crime No. 42 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail from the District Court, Vellore on 20.06.2005 in Crl.M.P. No. 3872 of 2005.

6. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Sujatha before the first respondent, the petitioner was placed under suspension, and subsequently, a charge memo was issued on 08.07.2005 by the second respondent. As per the charge memo, two charges were framed, namely:

                   ''தவறான நடத்தை அல்லது நெறிதவறி நடந்து கொள்ளுதல் அடிப்படையில்காவலர் 499 பி, அழகிரி (தற்காலிக பணி நீக்கம்) என்பவருக்கெதிராக சுமத்துவதற்கு கருதப்பட்டுள்ள குற்றக்கூறுகளின் சாரம் குறித்த அட்டவணை.

                   குற்றச்சாட்டு 1 :

                   தமிழ்நாடு சிறப்புக்காவல் படை 10-ஆம் அணி உளுந்தூர்பேட்டையில் “சி”நிறுமத்தில் கடமையுணர்வுடனும், ஒழுக்கத்துடனும் பணியாற்றி வரவேண்டிய பிழையாளர் காவலரான 499 பி, அழகிரி (தற்காலிக பணி நீக்கம்) என்பவர் கடந்த 2004 அக்டோபர் மாதம் வேலூர் மாவட்டம் தொரப்பாட் மத்திய சிறைச்சாலையில் பணியாற்றி வந்தபோது திருமணமாகாத செல்வி சுஜாதா என்கிற சுஜி த/பெ ஆர்.எம். சுப்பிரமணியன் (தலைமை காவலர் 2829 மேல்பாடி காவல் நிலையம் வேலூர்) 35/4 சத்தியா நகர் இரண்டாம் தெரு காங்கேய நல்லூர் ரோடு, வேலூர் மாவட்டம் என்ற பெண்ணுடன் காதல் வயப்பட்டு பழகியும் அவருடன் பல இடங்களுக்கு தன்னிச்சையாக சென்று தங்கியும் 10.03.2005 அன்று பிழையாளர் திருவண்ணாமலை கார்த்திகை தீபத்திருவிழா பணியில் இருந்தபோது மேற்படி பெண்மணியை வரவழைத்தும் அவரை திருமணம் செய்துகொள்வதாக ஆசை வார்த்தைகள் கூறி கற்பழித்தும். அதன் காரணமாக மேற்படி பெண்மணி பிழையாளரிடம் தன்னை திருமணம் செய்து கொள்ளுமாறு பலமுறை பல்வேறு சந்தர்ப்பங்களில் வற்புறுத்தியபோது பிழையாளர் நிதானமாக மறுத்து செயல்பட்டும் அதனால் மேற்படி பெண்மணி பிழையாளர் மீது உயர் அதிகாரிகளிடம் மனு கொடுக்க காரணமாக இருந்ததும் அதன் காரணமாக கடமையும் கட்டுப்பாடும் நிறைந்த காவல் துறையின் நற்பெயருக்கு களங்கத்தை ஏற்படுத்தும் வகையில் நடந்து கொண்ட கண்டிக்கத்தக்க கடமை தவறிய நடத்தைக்கான குற்றச்சாட்டு.

                   குற்றச்சாட்டு 2 :

                   மேற்படி சம்பவம் தொடர்பாக செல்வி சுஜாதா த/பெ. ஆர்.எம். சுப்பிரமணியன் என்பவர் பிழையாளரது உயர் அதிகாரிகளிடம் மனு கொடுத்தும் அதன்பேரில் உதவி தளவாய்,10-ஆம் அணி அவர்களால் கடந்த 28.06.2005 மாதம் விசாரணை மேற்கொண்டபோது பிழையாளர் மேற்படி செல்வி சுஜாதா என்பவர் தன்மீது வேலூர் அனைத்து மகளிர் காவல் நிலையத்தில் மனு கொடுத்தும் அந்த மனு எண் 886/2005 ஆக பதிவு செய்யப்பட்டு நடவடிக்கையில் இருந்து வருவதை அறிந்து கொண்டும் அதன் காரணமாக எங்கே தன்னை வேலூர் மாவட்ட காவல்துறையினர் கைது செய்து விடுவார்களோ என்று அச்சமுற்று அதிலிருந்து தப்பிக்கும் எண்ணத்தில் கனம் வேலூர் விடுமுறை கால நீதிமன்றத்தில் எதிர்பார்ப்பு பிணை மனு (Anticipatory bail) தாக்கல் செய்தும் அதை நீதிமன்றத்தில் பி.ஆர்.எம்.பி 3872/2005-ன்படி நடவடிக்கைக்கு எடுத்துக்கொள்ளப்பட்டும் பிழையாளருக்கு 02.06.2005 அன்று எதிர்பார்ப்பு பிணை தொடர்பாக ஆணைகள் வழங்கப்பட்டும் உள்ளதை தனது விசாரணை அதிகாரி முன்பு தெரிவிக்காமலும் அன்றியும் இது தொடர்பாக தனது இதர மேல் அதிகாரிகளிடம் தெரிவிக்காமலும் மறைத்து, அதன் காரணமாக தனது கடமையில் உண்மையை மறைக்கும் நல்லொழுக்கம் இல்லாமல் நடந்து கொண்ட கண்டிக்கத்தக்க நடத்தைக்கான குற்றச்சாட்டு.’’

7. After the charges were framed against the petitioner, the second respondent nominated the Assistant Commandant-I, Tamil Nadu Special Police X Battalion, Ulundurpet, as the Enquiry Officer (EO). The enquiry was completed, and an enquiry report was submitted on 16.05.2005 to the second respondent. The second respondent accepted the enquiry report and ordered the punishment of removal from service on 27.10.2005. Thereafter, judgment was pronounced in C.C. No. 204 of 2005 discharging the petitioner from the criminal charges. Based on that acquittal, he submitted a mercy petition, which was rejected on 04.05.2005. Challenging the aforesaid order of dismissal and the rejection of his mercy petition, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

8. The respondent submitted that all principles of natural justice were followed after the issuance of the charge memo and the report of the enquiry officer, an explanation was called for from the petitioner, and he also submitted his explanation. It is the case of the respondent that the charges were grave in nature and that the petitioner conducted himself in a manner bringing disrepute to the police force. The respondent further submitted that the relationship with the said Sujatha was not denied by the petitioner, and his acquittal in the criminal case was not on merits. The respondent further submitted that failing to inform higher officials about the anticipatory bail proceedings amounted to serious misconduct. Upon hearing the submissions, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ appeal.

9. We heard the counsel for the respondent. There was no representation for the petitioner, despite an opportunity being given.

10. Two charges were framed against the petitioner.

                   (i) One regarding the complaint given by one Sujatha. Insofar as the first charge is concerned, the petitioner never denied the relationship he had with the said Sujatha. In fact, the explanation given by the petitioner was that Sujatha came and met him at the control room, Egmore, Chennai and demanded Rs.6,000/- or, alternatively, that he should marry her. The above said explanation is totally unbelievable. In fact, the Enquiry Officer, after a detailed enquiry and on the basis of the evidence, came to the conclusion that Charge No. 1 was proved. (ii) Insofar as Charge No. 2 is concerned, the non-disclosure of the granting of anticipatory bail to the higher officials is a serious matter, since the petitioner was trying to suppress the pendency of the criminal case from his superiors, thereby attempting to safeguard his job. The above said complaint and the filing of anticipatory bail came to the knowledge of the officials only on the basis of the complaint given by the said Sujatha.

11. In similar situation, the Supreme Court in the case of the Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs. S.Samuthiram reported in 2013 1 SCC 598 held as follows:

                   ‘’23. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Department. The respondent, it may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non examination of two key witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the Prosecution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of winning order P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the criminal case cannot be ruled out. We fail to see, why the Prosecution had not examined Head Constables 1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station. It was these two Head Constables who took the respondent from the scene of occurrence along with P.Ws. 1 and 2, husband and wife, to the Tenkasi Police Station and it is in their presence that the complaint was registered. In fact, the criminal court has also opined that the signature of PW 1 (husband – complainant) is found in Ex.P1 – Complaint. Further, the Doctor P.W.8 has also clearly stated before the Enquiry Officer that the respondent was under the influence of liquor and that he had refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That being the factual situation, we are of the view that the respondent was not honourably acquitted by the criminal court, but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses were not examined.

                   ……………

                   26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.’’

In 2022 6 SCC 563, in the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh, the Supreme Court held that the scope of judicial review in respect of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was discussed and as well as the scope of acquittal in criminal proceedings. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

                   ‘’22 In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether:

                   (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;

                   (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;

                   (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and

                   (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and

                   (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.

                   23. However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The findings of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.

                   24 For these reasons, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at the Kalaburagi Bench dated 29 November 2017 in Writ Petition Nos. 202250-251/2016 (S-KAT). The Petition instituted by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution shall stand dismissed. The finding of misconduct and the punishment of compulsory retirement are restored.’’

In 2016 13 SCC 71 in the case of Union India and other Vs. Diler Singh, the supreme Court, while discussing the punishment with respect to the gravity of misconduct in respect of Central Reserve Police Force, has held as follows:

                   ‘’26. We are inclined to think so as a member of the disciplined force, the respondent was expected to follow the rules, have control over his mind and passion, guard his instincts and feelings and not allow his feelings to fly in fancy. It is not a mild deviation which human nature would grant some kind of lenience. It is a conduct in public which has compelled the authority to think and, rightly so, that the behaviour is totally indisciplined. The respondent, if we allow ourselves to say so, has given indecent burial to self-control, diligence and strength of will-power. A disciplined man is expected, to quote a few lines from Mathew Arnold:-

                   “We cannot kindle when we will

                   The fire which in the heart resides,

                   The spirit bloweth and is still,

                   In mystery our soul abides:

                   But tasks in hours of insight will’d

                   Can be through hours of gloom fulfill’d.’’

Though the context is slightly different, yet we have felt, it is worth reproducing.

12. In view of dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, the contention of the appellant that criminal proceedings ended in acquittal should be considered for reinstatement is no longer a valid point for interference.

13. Further, the Enquiry Officer found that the second charge was also proved. Being a person in a uniformed service, the petitioner should maintain the utmost discipline and honesty. When discipline fails, the petitioner is unfit to remain in service. If the proven charges are treated with minimal punishment, it would have a negative impact on the disciplined force, making it very difficult for the higher officials to control the force.

14. In such circumstances, we are completely in agreement with the order of the Writ Court, and we feel that no interference is required in this case.

15. In view of the same, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.