T.Ramanujam vs THE TRIBUNAL FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 31-08-2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 03-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP Nos. 3346, 3351 & 3360 of 2022
AND
WMP NOS. 3467, 3469, 3474, 24409 & 24412 OF 2022
T.Ramanujam
S/o. Thambuswamy Reddiar, Formerly Head
Constable 1904, (Armed Reserve, Cuddalore
District) Formerly CB CID, Chennai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Tribunal For Disciplinary Proceedings
Kuralagam, Chennai 104.
2. Thiru Umashankar IAS
Presiding Officer, Kuralagam, Chennai 104.
3. The Director General Of Police
Head of Police Force, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 4.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home (Police V) Department, Fort St George,
Chennai 9.
..Respondent(s)
WP No. 3351 of 2022
R.Sundareswara Pandian
S/o. Raja Chandrasekaran, Formerly Inspector of
PoliceCB CID, Chennai City, Metro Unit, 4, SI
Quarters, A Block, T.P. Chatram, Kilpauk Garden
Road, Chennai-600 010.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
__________
Page1 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
1. The Tribunal For Disciplinary Proceedings
Kuralagam, Chennai 104.
2. Thiru Umashankar IAS
Presiding Officer, Kuralagam, Chennai 104.
3. The Director General Of Police
Head of Police Force, Tamil Nadu, Chennai 4.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home (Police IV) Department, Fort St George,
Chennai 9.
..Respondent(s)
WP No. 3360 of 2022
C.Siva Subramanian
S/o. Chinnaswamy, Formerly Sub-Inspector of
Police TSP XI Battalion, Rajapalayam, (formerly
on deputation with CB CID, Chennai)
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Tribunal For Disciplinary Proceedings
Kuralagam, Chennai 104.
2. Thiru Umashankar IAS
Presiding Officer, Kuralagam, Chennai 104.
3. The Director General of Police
Head of Police Force, Tamil Nadu, Chennai 4.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home (Police IV-A) Department, Fort St
George, Chennai 9.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the report of
st nd
the 1 and 2 respondent in TDP Case No.11/2014 dt 31.5.17, the order of
rd
the 3 respondent in RC No. 285796 / Con. V(2) / 2011 dt 17.6.2020 and
__________
Page2 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
th
confirmed by the order of the 4 respondent in GO (D) No.1355 Home
(Police V) Dept dt 23.11.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents
to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service
and monetary benefits and grant such other further relief as this Honorable
Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
WP No. 3351 of 2022
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the Respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st
respondent in TDP Case No.30/2012 dt 31.5.2017, the impugned order of the
2nd respondent in RC No. 285796 / Con. V(2) / 2011 dt 17.6.2020 and
confirmed by the 3rd Respondent GO (D) No.1131 Home (Police IV) Dept dt
7.10.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary
benefits writ of and grant such other further relief as this Honorable Court
may deem fit in the circumstances of the case
WP No. 3360 of 2022
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the Respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st
respondent in TDP Case No.12/2014 dt 31.05.2017, the impugned order of
the 2nd respondent in RC No. 285796 / Con. V(2) / 2011 dt 17.6.2020 and
confirmed by the 3rd Respondent GO (D) No. 1099 Home (Police IV-A)
Dept dt 1.10.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and
__________
Page3 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
monetary benefits writ of and grant such other further relief as this Honorable
Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Venkataramani,
Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan
(in all WPs)
For Respondent(s): R-1 TRIBUNAL
R-2 Presiding Officer
Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi,
Special Govt. Pleader For R-3& R4.
(In all WP'S)

C O M M O N O R D E R
The writ petitioner R.Sundareswara Pandian in WP.No.3351 of 2022 is
an Inspector of Police, the petitioner T.Ramanujam in WP.No.3346 of 2022
was a Head Constable, and the petitioner C.Siva Subramanian in
WP.No.3360 of 2022 was a Sub-Inspector of Police. The charge against all
the three petitioners is that, they received illegal gratification of Rs.1.00 crore
for not arresting one Feros Khan, who is the accused in a formidably high
value economic offence. They were issued with the charge memos on
15.09.2015. Simultaneously, an FIR was also registered against them during
2009 in Crime No.454 of 2018. However, after prolonged investigation for a
period of six years, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department dropped
__________
Page4 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
the further proceedings as there are not sufficient materials to prosecute them
before the Criminal Court, but recommended for enquiry before the “Tribunal
for Disciplinary Proceedings” [hereinafter called “TDP”], Chennai. In
pursuance thereof, against them, a TDP proceedings was initiated and
ultimately, the Enquiry Officer viz., TDP has found all the petitioners guilt
and thereafter, they were imposed with a punishment of dismissal from
service. Against which, they preferred an Appeal and the Appeal was also
dismissed by confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved
nd
with the order of the 2 respondent viz., the Enquiry Officer, and the
Disciplinary Authority order dated 17.06.2020 for dismissal from service and
it’s confirmation by the Appellate Authority on 23.11.2021, 01.10.2021 &
07.10.2021 respectively, the present writ petitions have been filed.
2.Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Venkataramani, appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.
3. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Presiding Officer
of the TDP from the very inception, was biased and that the petitioners were
not afforded with sufficient opportunity to submit their written statement or
to produce the witnesses whom they proposed to examine on their behalf.
__________
Page5 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
Without giving proper and sufficient opportunity, the Presiding Officer
submitted a report holding that the charges are proved.
4.Based upon the above report, they were imposed with a punishment
of removal from service on 17.06.2020 and thereafter, the petitioners
th th
preferred a statutory appeal before the 4 respondent. Since the 4
respondent did not pass any order for some time, the petitioners were
constrained to prefer a Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, a direction was
th
given to the 4 respondent to pass order. Thereafter, they passed an order on
07.10.2021 confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. It is the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel that even the Appellate Authority
have not followed the Rules, particularly Rule 6 of the “Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules” [hereinafter called
“Rules”].
5.According to the above Rule, it is the duty of the Appellate Authority
to re-appreciate the evidence as it is the last fact finding Authority. It is also
the contention of the petitioners that having raised numerous grounds, more
specifically the error committed by the Disciplinary Authority, particularly in
respect of non consideration of the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4
and the huge delay from the date of registration of FIR and the initiation of
__________
Page6 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
the Disciplinary proceedings, they did not consider those aspects. He would
further submit that it is the duty of the TDP to conduct the proceedings as per
the procedures deliniated in Section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It was also the contention of the learned
Senior Counsel that the Disciplinary Authority did not hear their arguments
and that the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority are not the speaking order. In support of his contention, he relied
upon the judgments in (i) Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance
Co., Ltd., and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 719, (ii) K.Kandasamy Vs.
Deputy Inspector-General of Police reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1382, (iii)
A.Rajendran Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Armed Reserve) and
another [WP.No.8782 of 2013 dated 03.02.2020] and (iv) R.Rooban Vs. The
Deputy Inspector General of Police and others [WP.No.25170 of 2008
dated 08.09.2021]. Hence, prayed to allow these writ petitions.
6. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned
Special Government Pleader and would contend that the evidence of PW5
viz., the accused Feroz Khan [who was not arrested by these petitioners after
allegedly receiving bribe of Rs.1.00 crore], and the evidence of the Superior
Officer (PW13), [who directed the petitioners to arrest PW5], had
__________
Page7 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
categorically deposed the misdeeds and misconduct committed by these
petitioners. It is also his contention that in a judicial review, the contours are
very limited. Unless there is a violation in following the Rules and unless the
order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is
perverse, the question of interference does not arise. It is also the contention
of the learned Special Government Pleader that under judicial review, the
petitioner cannot expect that the witnesses’ statement to be re-appreciated as
that of the Appellate Authority. Hence, prayed to dismiss these writ
petitions.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
8. Before we delve into the merits of the matter, this Court deems it
appropriate to discuss the contours of the judicial review, and the factors,
which would give rise to this Court to interfere with the impugned order.
9. In B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC
749 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows . The relevant paragraphs
are paragraphs 12 & 18 and the same read as follows:-
“ 12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review
of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial
review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment
and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches
__________
Page8 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
is necessarily correct in the eye of the court . When an inquiry is
conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the
Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was
held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are
complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on
some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry
has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or
conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither
the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as
defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority
accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the
disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is
guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial
review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the
evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the
evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority
held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of
statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based
on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal
may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the
relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. ..............
14. ...............
15. ...............
__________
Page9 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
16. ................
17. ................
18 . A review of the above legal position would establish that the
disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being
fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the
evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with
the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the
magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal,
while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other
penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or
the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either
directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in
exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with
cogent reasons in support thereof.
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
10. In Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai
Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that if the decision is against the natural justice, then the same can be
interfered . The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 25 & 29 and the same read
as follows:-
__________
Page10 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
“25 . It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the
Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making
process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure
fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The
Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the
delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the Rules of
natural justice or in violation of the statutory Rules prescribing the
mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the
disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or
finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or
where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by
the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on
the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari
could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be
extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a
decision of authority as a matter of fact.
26. ......
27 . .......
28 . ........
29 . The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of
judicial review Under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution
would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the
departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or
perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or
where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with
objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is
some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the
departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.”
Through the above judgments, the following principles are emerging:-
(i) Power of Judicial review is not like an appeal. But
such power is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and to ensure the compliance of natural justice.
(ii) The power of judicial review is not like a appellate
remedy to substitute its own finding, unless the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority is perverse
__________
Page11 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
and without evidence.
(iii) The High Court had no jurisdiction to review the
penalty, unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
(iv) Since because there is a possibility to arrive at yet
another finding, 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 departmental authority, the same has to be
sustained.
11.Coming to the procedural irregularities, firstly, the learned Senior
Counsel would contend that the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as
the Appellate Authority is not a speaking order. The learned Senior Counsel
would submit that the TDP report has simply extracted the witnesses’
statement, the cross examination and the explanation given by the petitioners,
and has ultimately simply mentioned the conclusion without any reason that
the charges are proved.
12.No doubt, the TDP in it’s report has recorded all the witnesses’
statements and the petitioner’s explanations. However, he has made
__________
Page12 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
discussions in his order with the heading “Epilogue”. In the discussion, the
Disciplinary Authority has referred the evidence of PW5, where he
categorically deposed that he has parted with a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with
these petitioners to avoid the arrest. But, the learned Senior counsel by
relying on the PW5 cross examination, contended that PW5 did not
personally know one of the petitioner herein qua Mr.Sundara Pandian.
13.But, on close reading of the deposition of PW5, this Court is of the
firm view that the finding rendered by TDP is based on available material and
a probable view. PW5 in his deposition had categorically stated about the
handing over of Rs.1.00 crore to these petitioners, which factum was
corroborated by PW13, who was the Assistant Superintendent of Police and
Superior Officer to whom these petitioners were reporting. He spoke about
the elusive attitude of these petitioners in delaying the arrest, and a news
column in one Tamil daily viz., Dinakaran, at the relevant point of time
complaining the receipt of Rs.1.00 crore. Therefore, the contention of the
learned Senior Counsel that there are no material against these petitioners
cannot be countenanced.
14.At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the standard of proof
in a disciplinary proceedings is the preponderance of probabilities and not
__________
Page13 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
proof beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the findings given by TDP in it’s
epilogue, not only discloses the application of mind, has also given reasons to
arrive at such conclusion. We are all aware that the reasons are inexorable
requirement for any order. The order without reason is perverse. But, in the
case in hand, there are sufficient reasonable reasons to sustain the conclusion.
There may not be reasoning to the expectation of the petitioner, but the same
cannot be a criteria to judge the order. What is essential is, whether the
discussion discloses the application of mind. The discussion recorded in the
TDP report overwhelmed with the reason for such conclusion. Therefore, the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the TDP’s report is not a
speaking order and not supported by any evidence, is liable to be rejected.
15.The next contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel is that,
according to the Police Standing Orders, the Appellate Authority ought to
have considered whether the facts established are sufficient for taking action,
and whether the penalty is excessive or not. It is the case of the learned
Senior Counsel that when a Statute expects the Authority to act in a particular
manner, any deviation has to be viewed seriously. To put it differently, in
spite of the fact that the petitioner took various defence, the Appellate
Authority did not consider the same and has simply reproduced the enquiry
__________
Page14 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
report, and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority in cryptic
nature.
16. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment in
A.Rajendran Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Armed Reserve) and
another [WP.No.8782 of 2013 dated 03.02.2020] through which he would
contend that there are no reason assigned in the impugned order, as to why
the Appellate Authority arrived at such conclusion. But, in paragraphs 3 to 5
of the impugned order in WP.No.3346, 3351 & 3360 of 2022, the Appellate
Authority has given a finding as follows:-
“WP.No.3346 of 2022
3.Thiru.T.Ramanujam, Ex-Head Constable 1904, formerly
Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department, Chennai, has now
submitted his statutory appeal fourth read above to the Government
requesting to cancel the punishment of “Removal from service”
imposed on him in TDP Case No.11/2014.
4.The Government have examined the petition of
Thiru.T.Ramanujam, Ex-Head Constable 1904, formerly Crime
Branch Criminal Investigation Department, Chennai carefully and
independently in compliance with the orders of the High Court of
Madras, fifth read above, along with the relevant records. It is
observed from the records that, Accused Officer 2
Thiru.T.Ramanujam and Accused Officer 3
Thiru.C.Sivasubramaniam had given instructions about mode of
transport and spot to hand over the alleged sum in this deal to
Prosecution Witness 5 Farook only and threatened not to reveal
anything to anybody. Further, it is clearly established that
Prosecution Witness 5 had handed over the money to the accused
officers personally and this has been proved beyond doubt. The
offence committed by the petitioner is grave in nature and the
petitioner has not adduced any supportive evidence to prove his
__________
Page15 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
innocence. Therefore, it is considered that there is no merit that
warrants further intervention in this case.
5.The Government have, therefore decided to reject the
statutory appeal of Thiru.T.Ramanujam, Ex-Head Constable 1904,
formerly Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department, Chennai
fourth read above, against the punishment of “Removal from service”
imposed on him in TDP Case No.11/2014 as devoid of merits and
order accordingly.
WP.No.3351 of 2022
3.Now, Thiru.R.Sundareswarapandiyan, formerly Inspector of
Police, CBCID Chennai has submitted his statutory appeal fourth
read above to Government requesting to cancel the punishment of
“Removal from service” imposed on him in Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings Case No.30/2012.
4.The Government have examined the appeal of
Thiru.R.Sundareswarapandiyan, formerly Inspector of Police, CBCIB
Chennai carefully and independently along with the relevant records
in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras,
Chennai in WP.Nos.14893, 14895 and 14897 of 2020. It is observed
from the records that the AO.1 Thiru.R.sundareswarapandiyan, was
the mastermind in this issue and had executed the extract of illegal
gratification with the assistance of AO.2 and AO.3 in a pre-planned
manner. PW5 had stated the role played by the AO.3 and AO.2 as per
the direction of AO.1 in handling over the illegal gratification. He
has not adduced any supportive evidence to prove his innocence.
Therefore, it is considered that there is no merit that warrants further
intervention in this case.
5.The Government have, therefore decided to reject the
statutory appeal of Thiru.R.Sundareswarapandiyan, formerly
Inspector of Police, CBCID Chennai against the punishment of
“Removal from service” imposed on him in Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings Case No.30/2012 as devoid of merits and orders
accordingly.
WP.No.3360 of 2022
3.Now, Thiru.C.Sivasubramanian, formerly Sub-Inspector of
Police, TSP XI Battalion, Rajapalayam, formerly CB CID Chennai
has now submitted his statutory appeal to the Government in the
letter fourth read above, requesting to cancel the punishment of
__________
Page16 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
“Removal from service” imposed on him in TDP Case No.12/2014.
4.The Government have examined the appeal of
Thiru.C.Sivasubramanian, formerly Sub-Inspector of Police, TSP XI
Battalion, Rajapalayam, formerly CB CIB Chennai, carefully in
compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras,
Chennai in WP.Nos.14893, 14895 and 14897 of 2020 dated
03.08.2021 and independently along with the relevant records. It is
observed from the records that the accused officers 2 and 3 given
instructions about mode of transport and the spot to hand over the
money to the accused officers personally and it has been proved
beyond doubt. The offence committed by the petitioner is grave and
he has not adduced any fresh materials/grounds to prove his
innocence. It is therefore considered that there is no merit that
warrants further intervention in this case.
5.The Government have, therefore decided to reject the
statutory appeal of Thiru.C.Sivasubramanian, formerly Sub-Inspector
of Police, TSP XI Battalion, Rajapalayam, formerly CB CID Chennai
against the punishment of “Removal from service” imposed on him in
TDP Case No.12/2014 as devoid of merits and order accordingly.”
17.On perusal of the above findings, it is amply clear that the Appellate
Authority has taken the petitioners’ defence and has answered as to why such
defence could not be accepted at all. The above discussion of the Appellate
Authority clearly demonstrates the application of mind.
18.It is relevant to mention that the learned Senior counsel relied upon
the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya’ s
case [cited supra], wherein, in paragraphs 31 & 32, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as follows:-
“31. We may for the aforementioned purpose take note of the
extant rules operating in the field. Requirements of consideration
in an appeal from an order of the disciplinary authority by the
__________
Page17 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
Appellate Authority is contained in Rule 37 whereas the provisions
as regards filing of a memorial are contained in Rule 40 thereof,
which read as under:
“37. Consideration of appeals.—(1) In case of an appeal against
an order of suspension, the Appellate Authority shall consider
whether in the light of the provisions of Rule 20 and having regard
to the circumstances of the case the order of suspension is justified
or not and confirm or revoke the other accordingly.
(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the
penalties specified in Rule 23, the Appellate Authority shall
consider:
(a) whether the procedure prescribed in these Rules has been
complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has
resulted in failure of justice;
(b) whether the findings are justified; and
(c) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or
inadequate, and pass orders:
I. setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty; or
II. remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or
to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case.
*
“40. Memorial.—An employee whose appeal under these Rules has
been rejected by the Chairman/Chairman-cum-Managing Director
or in whose case such Appellate Authority has enhanced the
penalty either on appeal under Rule 24 or on review under Rule
39(2) may address a memorial to the Chairman/Chairman-cum-
Managing Director in respect of that matter within a period of 6
months from the date the appellant received a copy of the order of
such Appellate Authority.”
32. The Appellate Authority, therefore, while disposing of the
appeal is required to apply his mind with regard to the factors
enumerated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Rules. The judgment
__________
Page18 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
of the civil court being inter partes was relevant. The conduct of
the appellant as noticed by the civil court was also relevant. The
fact that the respondent has accepted the said judgment and acted
upon it would be a relevant fact. The authority considering the
memorial could have justifiably come to a different conclusion
having regard to the findings of the civil court. But, it did not apply
its mind. It could have for one reason or the other refused to take
the subsequent event into consideration, but as he had a discretion
in the matter, he was bound to consider the said question. He was
required to show that he applied his mind to the relevant facts. He
could not have without expressing his mind simply ignored the
same.”
19.As per the above judgment, what is expected from the Appellate
Authority is the application of mind to the facts in accordance to Rule 6(1)(a)
to (c). In the above judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that
if the Appellate Authority is in agreement with that of the Disciplinary
Authority, then the order need not be a speaking order, but it should contain
the material to vindicate the proper application of mind. To put it differently,
it is not necessary for the Appellate Authority to meet out all the defences
raised by the appellant, but the conclusion should be reached after proper
application of mind.
20.As already discussed hereinabove and as in the Appellate
Authority’s order [extracted hereinabove], the material are available overtly
to manifest the fullest application of mind. In this regard, it is relevant to refer
__________
Page19 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
the judgment in Airports Authority Of India Vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee
reported in 2025 INSC 149 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after
referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Boloram Bordoloi
v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank reported in (2021) 3 SCC 806 has held in paragraph
32 as follows:-
“32 . It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, it is not
necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and
every ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation
against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required
to be recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Our view stands fortified
by the decision of this Court in Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi
Gaolia Bank27, wherein it was held:-
“11. . . . Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority
accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes
an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the
order imposing punishment . The punishment is imposed based on
the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further
elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary
authority . . . .”
[Emphasis supplied by this Court]
21. In the case in hand, the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the
findings rendered by TDP, which finding as already stated, is probable one.
Though the learned Senior Counsel would project certain doubts with regard
to the certain finding, as already stated, such doubts will not bring the
probable and reasonable findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority as
__________
Page20 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
perverse, but may inference to take an alternate view. But, the mere existence
of an alternative view cannot be a reason to substitute the factual finding
rendered by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority.
22.Furthermore, we must keep in mind that the present proceedings is
only a disciplinary proceedings and not a criminal trial, to expect the proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Sardar Bahadur reported in (1972) 4 SCC 618 has held as follows:-
“15. A finding cannot be characterised as perverse or unsupported
by any relevant materials if it is a reasonable inference from
proved facts. Now what are the proved facts:
……………………………………………………………………………….
A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard
proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not
proof beyond reasonable doubt . If the inference that Nand Kumar
was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent
was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved
facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal
over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant
materials which the authority has accepted and which materials
may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it
is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an
independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been
properly held the question of adequacy or reliability of the
evidence cannot be canvaased before the High Court (see State of
Andhra Pradesh v.S. Sree Rama Rao) [AIR 1963 SC 1723 : (1964)
3 SCR 25 at 33 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150] . No doubt there was no
separate finding on the question whether Nand Kumar was a
person likely to have official dealings with the respondent by the
Inquiring Officer or the President. But we think that such a finding
__________
Page21 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
was implied when they said that Charge No. 3 has been proved.
The only question was whether the proved facts of the case would
warrant such an inference. Tested in the light of the standard of
proof necessary to enter a finding of this nature, we are satisfied
that on the material facts proved the inference and the implied
finding that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official
dealings with the respondent were reasonable.”
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
23.In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court is of the firm
view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders dated
17.06.2020 and it’s confirmation by the Appellate Authority on 23.11.2021,
01.10.2021 & 07.10.2021 respectively. Hence, the present Writ Petitions are
devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected WMPs are also closed.
03-09-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KMI
To
1. The Tribunal For Disciplinary Proceedings
Kuralagam, Chennai 104.
2. Thiru Umashankar IAS
Presiding Officer, Kuralagam, Chennai 104.
3. The Director General Of Police
Head of Police Force, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 4.
4. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Home (Police V) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 9.
__________
Page22 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3669
WP No. 3346 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KMI
WP Nos. 3346, 3351 & 3360 of 2022
AND
WMP NOS. 3467, 3469, 3474,
24409 & 24412 OF 2022
03-09-2026
__________
Page23 of 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 07:55:46 pm )