K.KATHIRESAN vs THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 29309 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011783952024}
and
WMP Nos. 31955 and 31959 of 2024
K.Kathiresan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
O/o The Deputy Inspector General Of Police,
(Salem Range), Salem and District-636 456.
2. The District Superintendent of Police
O/o.The District Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri Town and Taluk,
Krishnagiri District-635 001.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dhenkanikottai Sub Division,
Dhenkanikottai Town and Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Hosur Sub Division),
Hosur Town and Taluk,
Krishnagiri District-635 109.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Bargur Sub Division,
Bargur Town and Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
6. The Circle Inspector Police (Law and Order)
E-1 Denkanikottai Police Station,
Dhenkanikottai Town And Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
7. The Inspector of Police (Law and Order)
E-2 Police Station,
Thally Village and Post,
Dhenkanikottai Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records
connected with the impugned Dismissal Order passed by the 2nd respondent,
vide Na. Ka. No. G2 / Tha. Pa. 07 / 2023 dated 29.12.2023 and consequent
order on punishment Roll Farm No. O.M. 21 dated 02.01.2024 passed by the
2nd respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2
herein to reinstate the petitioner as Grade-I Police in E-2 Police Station, Tally
Village and Post, Dhenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District with all
consequential and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Dalit Tiger C.Ponnusamy
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.K.Ram Siddhartha,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the
impugned order of dismissal dated 29.12.2023 passed by the second respondent
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
and the consequential order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the second respondent
herein, quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 herein to
reinstate the petitioner as Grade-I Police Constable in E-2 Police Station, Thally
Village and Post, Dhenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, with all
consequential and monetary benefits.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ
Petition are that the petitioner is a Grade-I Police Constable attached to E-2
Police Station, Thally Village and Post, Dhenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri
District. On 08.03.2021, at about 7.30 a.m., the petitioner intercepted a vehicle
bearing Registration No.TN-40-Q-1677. On interception, he found that the
vehicle was carrying Gutka products. Even after knowing about the
transportation of the contraband, instead of informing the Police Station, he
allegedly negotiated with the driver for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, on the promise of
allowing the vehicle to leave without registering an FIR. Since the Department
came to know about such delinquency of the petitioner, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated and, ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from
service. The said order was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the
Reviewing Authority, challenging which the present Writ Petition has been
filed.
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the
materials available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the disciplinary proceedings. It is
the specific contention of the learned counsel that the witnesses relied upon by
the Department have categorically stated that they did not know the petitioner
and that they had not seen the petitioner at the scene of occurrence. It is also his
contention that, though there are contradictory versions in the evidence, the
disciplinary authority erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the charges were
proved and ultimately made the petitioner a scapegoat.
4.1. He would further submit that, though initially allegations were
levelled against various levels of officers, ranging from the DSP to the
Constables, all of them were relieved by wrongly fixing the entire responsibility
and delinquency upon the petitioner. It is also the contention of the learned
counsel that the petitioner is living a differently abled daughter and, in any
event, the punishment imposed upon him is shockingly disproportionate. Hence,
he prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.
5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned
Additional Government Pleader and would contend that the disciplinary
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
authority has followed all due procedures and has complied with the principles
of natural justice in their fullest spirit. After considering the positive report of
the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of
dismissal from service. He would also contend that the petitioner had previously
been imposed with punishments on different dates for various delinquencies.
Though the petitioner relies upon the alleged contradictions in the evidence, in
fact, there are no material contradictions and the driver of the subject vehicle
which transported the contraband and the person who brought the sum of Rs.2
lakhs have deposed before the disciplinary authority about the nature of the
occurrence.
5.1. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit
that, no doubt, there are certain admissions in favour of the petitioner, but such
admissions would, in no way, take away the findings rendered by the
disciplinary authority, as the major portion of the chief-examination was not at
all challenged by the petitioner. Apart from the deposition of PW.1 and PW.2,
namely, the driver and the person who brought the bribe amount, PW.3 and
PW.4 were also examined, who had reached the scene of occurrence on the
information given by the petitioner so as to negotiate with the owner of the
contraband. Their evidence also stands against the petitioner. He would further
contend that an FIR was also registered under the relevant provisions of the IPC
against the peddler of the contraband. Therefore, he would contend that the
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority is based on the principle of
preponderance of probabilities, and that the same cannot be faulted with and
that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. It is also the case
of the respondents that, this being a case involving corrupt practice, the
punishment of dismissal from service cannot be held to be disproportionate.
Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
7. The charge against the petitioner is that, though he intercepted the
vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-40-Q-1677, an Eicher vehicle, which was
transporting banned tobacco products, instead of registering an FIR, he
negotiated with the persons concerned and received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs,
thereby indulging in conduct unbecoming of a police personnel and causing
damage to the image of the Police Force. In order to substantiate the charge, the
Department relied upon 14 witnesses and 17 documents. Out of the 14
witnesses, PW.1 and PW.2 are the star witnesses.
8. Admittedly, PW.1 was the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN-40-Q-1677, with whom the petitioner allegedly negotiated for a bribe of
Rs.2 lakhs, and PW.2 is the person who brought the sum of Rs.2 lakhs on the
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
instructions of the owner of PW.1. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
by relying upon certain admissions made by them during cross-examination,
would contend that, since the witnesses had not seen the petitioner at the scene
of occurrence and had seen him for the first time before the DSP's Office, there
was no possibility of the petitioner having received the bribe.
9. At the same time, PW.3 and PW.4 had seen the petitioner near Daba
Hotel and would further depose that they arrived at the place to which the
petitioner had asked them to come and, on arrival, after coming to know about
the request made by the petitioner to negotiate with the owner of the Eicher
lorry for the payment of the bribe, they did not want to involve themselves in
such an act and left the place. This portion of their evidence remains
unchallenged. Therefore, merely because PW.1 and PW.2, during cross-
examination, made certain admissions to the effect that they had not seen the
petitioner at the scene of occurrence, by itself, will not render the conclusion
arrived at by the disciplinary authority an impossible conclusion, particularly
when PW.1 and PW.2 had spoken about the presence and involvement of the
petitioner during their chief-examination.
10. Furthermore, the petitioner has nowhere stated that he had not seen
the Eicher vehicle or that he had not spoken with PW.1 and PW.2. It is pertinent
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
to mention that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was recovered from PW.2. Therefore, if the
entire evidence adduced by the Department is read harmoniously and
conjointly, it would clearly establish that the finding of the Enquiry Officer,
which was accepted by the disciplinary authority, is a possible and probable
finding.
11. Before we delve into the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate
to set out the contours of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. In this
regard, this Court would like to refer to the following judgments:-
(i) B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995)
6 SCC 749
(ii) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs.
Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 61.
(iii) The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., Vs. Ajit Kumar
Singh & Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478.
Through the above judgements, the following principles
would emerge:-
(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But such
power is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and the compliance of natural justice.
(ii) The power of judicial review is not like an appellate
remedy to substitute its own finding, unless the findings of the
Original Authority and Appellate Authority is perverse and
without evidence.
(iii) The High Court had no jurisdiction to review the
penalty, unless the same is shockingly disproportionate.
(iv) The mere possibility to arrive at yet another finding,
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
cannot be a reason to substitute the finding of the disciplinary
Authority.
(v) The judicial review is meant only to ensure fairness in
treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
(vi) While exercising the power of judicial review, so long
as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by
the original authority, the same has to be sustained.
12. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, though the petitioner
has raised certain defences, as already held, such defences would, in no way,
render the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority perverse or
unsustainable. Further, there is abundant evidence to establish the attempt made
by the petitioner to arrange a person to negotiate with the owner of the
contraband and to negotiate with PW.1 and PW.2, notwithstanding their denial
during cross-examination that they had not seen the petitioner at the place of
occurrence. The evidence of the Department witnesses with regard to the arrival
of PW.1 and PW.2 at the scene of occurrence along with the money and the
presence of the petitioner at the said place would make it abundantly clear that
the findings of the disciplinary authority are based on the available evidence and
are in accordance with law.
13. Though the petitioner has argued the matter vigorously, this Court
could not find any material warranting deviation from the findings arrived at by
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
the disciplinary authority, the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority.
Once the charge is held to be proved and when the charge relates to a corrupt
practice committed by a Police Constable, any punishment lesser than dismissal
from service cannot be held to be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
Therefore, even with regard to the quantum of punishment, this Court does not
find any ground warranting interference, as the punishment imposed is
proportionate to the gravity of the charges.
14. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
15-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
To
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
O/o The Deputy Inspector General Of Police,
(Salem Range), Salem and District-636 456.
2. The District Superintendent of Police
O/o.The District Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri Town and Taluk,
Krishnagiri District-635 001.
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dhenkanikottai Sub Division,
Dhenkanikottai Town and Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Hosur Sub Division),
Hosur Town and Taluk,
Krishnagiri District-635 109.
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
O/o.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Bargur Sub Division,
Bargur Town and Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
6. The Circle Inspector Police (Law and Order)
E-1 Denkanikottai Police Station,
Dhenkanikottai Town and Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
7. The Inspector of Police (Law and Order)
E-2 Police Station,
Thally Village and Post,
Dhenkanikottai Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )

2026:MHC:4247
WP No. 29309 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 29309 of 2024
15-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 03:29:08 pm )