P.ARUMUGAM Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-12
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on July 21,2022

P.ARUMUGAM Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The order of punishment of postponement of increment for 3 years without cumulative effect imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.)The writ petitioner was holding the post of Police Constable Grade-I and a criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner in Crime No.765 of 2012 under Ss. 294(b), 323, 353, 506(ii) IPC read with Sec. 4(1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The criminal proceedings were initiated on 14/11/2012. Simultaneously departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and a charge memo was issued on 15/4/2013. The criminal case ended with an order of acquittal vide judgment dtd. 29/1/2014. The petitioner furnished the copy of the judgment passed by the Criminal Court and made a representation to drop the departmental disciplinary proceedings. However, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the departmental disciplinary proceedings and conducted an enquiry and thereafter passed final orders on 5/2/2015 imposing the penalty of postponement of increment for three years without cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the DIG of Police, Salem on 20/5/2015. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Disciplinary Authority/second respondent failed to consider the order of acquittal passed by the Competent Criminal Court of Law and also erred in holding that the charges are held proved. When the charges both in the criminal case and in the departmental proceedings are similar, the order of acquittal made by the competent Criminal Court is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of exonerating the writ petitioner from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. In other words, actions under Criminal Law and departmental disciplinary proceedings are on the same set of facts. The respondents have failed to consider the nature of allegation and the facts and circumstances involved in the case. The findings of the Criminal Court was also not considered. Thus the order impugned is liable to be set aside.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.