M.BALASUBRAMANIAM vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 15.10.2026
Pronounced on 30.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 4123 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010288202024}
and
WMP No. 4433 of 2024
M.Balasubramaniam
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police) (XVII) Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director
Department of Fire and Rescue Service,
No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.404, Home (Police-
XVII) Department dated 31.07.2023 and to quash the same and consequently
directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all
consequential and other attendant benefits, including arrears of salary.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ajmal Khan,
Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Venkatesh
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
__________
Page1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order
issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.404, Home (Police-XVII)
Department, dated 31.07.2023, quashing the same and consequently directing
the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential and
attendant benefits, including arrears of salary.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ
Petition are that while the petitioner was serving as a District Officer in the Fire
and Rescue Services Department at Coimbatore, on 08.11.2019, he was
remanded to judicial custody in connection with a case registered under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, pursuant to a trap proceeding. Subsequently, he
was placed under suspension. Though his suspension was revoked by this
Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted a stay and directed the respondents to
proceed with the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four months.
Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a charge memorandum
was issued to the petitioner on 07.03.2022. Upon receipt of the charge
memorandum, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking certain
__________
Page2 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
documents. However, though the disciplinary authority furnished some of the
documents, the video recordings were not furnished. Upon completion of the
enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 09.12.2022. Consequent
upon the receipt of the enquiry report, the impugned order dismissing the
petitioner from service was passed on 31.07.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that though the punishment of dismissal from service was
imposed based on the opinion furnished by the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission (TNPSC), such opinion was not furnished to the petitioner. It is
also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that there are no evidence
against the petitioner to arrive at an adverse conclusion. He would further
contend that the domestic enquiry cannot be construed to have been conducted
in a fair manner or in due compliance with the principles of natural justice. He
would also submit that the examination of witnesses in the presence of the
Inspector of Police throughout the enquiry and in the absence of the petitioner
would seriously prejudice the petitioner and violate the principles of natural
justice.
__________
Page3 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
4.1. It is also his contention that, since the charge relates to corruption,
the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority based on the preponderance
of probabilities are insufficient, and that, having regard to the seriousness of the
charge, the same ought to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He would
also contend that, in the present case, the Enquiry Officer conducted himself as
a prosecutor, resulting in apparent bias in the conduct of the enquiry. In view of
the above contentions, he prayed to interfere with the impugned order. To
substantiate his case, he relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) S.N. Narula v. Union of India , reported in (2011) 4 SCC 591;
(ii) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha , reported in
(2010) 2 SCC 772;
(iii) Union of India v. R.P. Singh, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 340;
(iv) R.Bagavathi Chandran Vs. The Inspector General of
Registration (W.P.(MD).No.8832 of 2018 dated 27.04.2018);
(v) Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative
Federation Ltd. & Ors. , reported in 2016:INSC:305; and
(vi) Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, reported in (2009) 12
SCC 78.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend
that, since the charges relate to corruption, all the witnesses involved in the trap
proceedings, including the complainant who allegedly handed over the bribe to
the petitioner, were examined in the disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, though the
standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is the preponderance of
__________
Page4 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
probabilities, in the present case, the charges have been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The learned Special Government Pleader would further
contend that the plea of prejudice raised by the petitioner on account of the non-
furnishing of a copy of the TNPSC opinion is illusory, as the disciplinary
authority is under no statutory obligation to obtain an opinion from the TNPSC.
He would also submit that the disciplinary authority had arrived at its decision
even before receiving the opinion of the TNPSC and that the opinion
subsequently furnished by the TNPSC merely reiterated the decision already
taken by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, no prejudice whatsoever has been
caused to the petitioner, and the non-supply of the TNPSC opinion would have
no bearing on the validity of the impugned order.
5.1. It is also the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader
that, though no Presenting Officer was appointed, the manner in which the
Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry would demonstrate that he had adopted a
fair approach. He would further submit that the petitioner participated in the
enquiry throughout without raising any objection and that the plea of bias raised
for the first time in the present Writ Petition is an afterthought. Hence, the
contention that the Enquiry Officer acted in a biased manner cannot be
accepted. It is also his contention that the power of judicial review is limited in
scope and that the disciplinary authority, having considered the relevant
documents and oral evidence, has rightly arrived at its conclusion. Therefore,
__________
Page5 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal from
service. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the corruption charge,
the punishment of dismissal from service is appropriate. Hence, he prayed to
dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side.
7. Before proceeding to consider the factual defence that there is no
evidence against the petitioner, it would be appropriate to consider the legal
grounds raised on his behalf, namely: (i) non-furnishing of the TNPSC opinion;
(ii) examination of witnesses in the presence of the Investigating Officer, viz.,
the Inspector of Police; (iii) examination of witnesses in the absence of the
petitioner; and (iv) the contention that the Enquiry Officer conducted himself as
a prosecutor.
8. Let me consider the above legal grounds one after another. The learned
Senior Counsel would contend that the disciplinary authority imposed the
punishment of dismissal from service based on the opinion furnished by the
TNPSC and that the non-furnishing of a copy of the said opinion has prejudiced
the petitioner's case. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.N. Narula v. Union of India ,
__________
Page6 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
reported in (2011) 4 SCC 591. The said judgment was rendered by a two-Judge
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.01.2004, wherein the findings of the
Central Administrative Tribunal that the disciplinary authority was under an
obligation to furnish the opinion of the Union Public Service Commission
(UPSC) before imposing punishment were upheld. The said legal position was
further elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India
v. R.P. Singh , reported in (2014) 7 SCC 340. For ready reference, paragraph 23
of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“23. We have referred to the aforesaid decision in B.
Karunakar case [ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 :
1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] in extenso as we
find that in the said case it has been opined by the
Constitution Bench that non-supply of the enquiry report is a
breach of the principle of natural justice. Advice from UPSC,
needless to say, when utilised as a material against the
delinquent officer, it should be supplied in advance. As it
seems to us, Rule 32 provides for supply of copy of advice to the
government servant at the time of making an order. The said
stage was in prevalence before the decision of the Constitution
Bench. After the said decision, in our considered opinion, the
authority should have clarified the Rule regarding development in
the service jurisprudence.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. On a perusal of the above ratio, it appears that the opinion of the UPSC
is required to be furnished to the delinquent employee before the final order is
passed. The Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
__________
Page7 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar , reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727,
which deals with the furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report, was relied upon
in this regard. By applying the principles laid down in the said Constitution
Bench judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, where the advice of the
UPSC is relied upon as material against the delinquent officer, the same must be
furnished to him in advance. Therefore, on a close reading of the above
judgments, it is evident that the opinion of the TNPSC must be furnished to the
employee when such opinion is relied upon against him. However, in the
present case, under the applicable statutory rules, the disciplinary authority is
not mandatorily required to obtain the opinion of the TNPSC, and the opinion
was obtained only on a voluntary basis.
10. Furthermore, on a close perusal of the impugned order, it is evident
that the disciplinary authority had already arrived at a conclusion to impose the
punishment of dismissal from service. Only thereafter, and before
communicating the order, the disciplinary authority obtained the opinion of the
TNPSC as an advisory measure. The TNPSC, in turn, concurred with the
decision already arrived at by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, as rightly
contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the non-supply of the
TNPSC opinion cannot, in the circumstances of the present case, be construed
as having caused any prejudice to the petitioner.
__________
Page8 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
11. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the Constitution Bench
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal
Srivastava , reported in (1957) 2 SCC 759, wherein it was held that consultation
with the UPSC and the furnishing of its advice are not mandatory requirements
in the circumstances considered therein. In the present case, the disciplinary
authority was not under an obligation to obtain the advice of the TNPSC. In
view of the above factual circumstances, when the disciplinary authority had
already arrived at a conclusion to dismiss the petitioner from service, the
subsequent consultation upon the proposed punishment with the TNPSC would
not, by reason of its non-supply, have caused prejudice to the petitioner.
Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the non-supply of
the TNPSC advice would vitiate the impugned order is liable to be rejected.
12. Nextly, coming to the conduct of the Enquiry Officer during the
disciplinary proceedings, there is no dispute that, in the present case, no
Presenting Officer was appointed and the chief-examination of the witnesses
was conducted by the Enquiry Officer himself. Relying upon this factual
position, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Enquiry Officer
conducted himself as a prosecutor, thereby violating the principles of natural
justice. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
__________
Page9 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha , reported in (2010) 2
SCC 772. The relevant portions of paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of the said
judgment are extracted hereunder:-
“28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority
is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not
supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence
presented by the Department, even in the absence of the
delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence
is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present
case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no
oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been
proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to
conclude that the charges have been proved against the
respondents.
29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of
the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be
conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a
basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an
employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being
imposed on the employee.
30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the
government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise.
The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a
closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased.
The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to
ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be
done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a
government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may
culminate in imposition of punishment including
dismissal/removal from service.”
__________
Page10 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
13. One of the relevant factors to be considered in this regard is that the
petitioner participated in the enquiry with the assistance of an Advocate. If the
petitioner had any grievance regarding the Enquiry Officer conducting himself
as a prosecutor, he could have raised an objection at the earliest opportunity.
Having participated in the enquiry without raising any such objection, and
having also failed to raise the same in his further representation before the
disciplinary authority, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise such a
contention for the first time in the present Writ Petition without demonstrating
any prejudice caused to him. In the circumstances of the present case, the
belated plea does not establish that the conduct of the Enquiry Officer had
prejudiced the petitioner's defence.
14. In Saroj Kumar Sinha’s case (cited supra), the delinquent employee
had raised an objection regarding the neutrality of the Enquiry Officer at the
earliest opportunity. Upon examining the factual circumstances, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court found that the Enquiry Officer had acted like a prosecutor and
set aside the enquiry proceedings. However, in the case in hand, on a perusal of
the depositions furnished along with the typed set of papers, this Court finds
that, though the Enquiry Officer had put questions to the management
witnesses, there is nothing to indicate that he had acted as a prosecutor.
__________
Page11 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
15. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma , reported in (2018) 7
SCC 670. The relevant portions of paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 36 of the said
judgment are extracted hereunder:-
“
31. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
speaking through R.V. Raveendran, C.J. (as he then was) had
occasion to consider the question of vitiation of the inquiry
when the Enquiry Officer starts himself acting as prosecutor in
Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui [ Union of India v.
Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui , ILR 2004 MP 821] . In the above
case the Court considered Rule 9(9)( c ) of the Railway
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Division
Bench while elaborating fundamental principles of natural
justice enumerated the seven well-recognised facets in para 7
of the judgment which is to the following effect:
“ 7 . One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no
man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of
seven well-recognised facets:
( i ) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free
from bias,
( ii ) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor,
( iii ) The complainant shall not be an
adjudicator,
( iv ) A witness cannot be the adjudicator,
( v ) The adjudicator must not import his personal
knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into
charges,
( vi ) The adjudicator shall not decide on the
dictates of his superiors or others,
( vii ) The adjudicator shall decide the issue with
reference to material on record and not reference to
__________
Page12 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
extraneous material or on extraneous considerations.
If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the
inquiry will be vitiated.”
32. The Division Bench further held that where the Enquiry
Officer acts as Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. Para
9 is as follows:
“ 9 . A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased
person who is unconnected with the incident so that he
can be impartial and objective in deciding the subject-
matters of inquiry. He should have an open mind till
the inquiry is completed and should neither act with
bias nor give an impression of bias. Where the Enquiry
Officer acts as the Presenting Officer, bias can be
presumed. At all events, it clearly gives an impression
of bias. An Enquiry Officer is in position of a judge or
adjudicator. The Presenting Officer is in the position of
a prosecutor. If the Enquiry Officer acts as a Presenting
Officer, then it would amount to Judge acting as the
prosecutor. When the Enquiry Officer conducts the
examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses and
leads them through the facts so as to present the case of
the disciplinary authority against the employee or
cross-examines the delinquent employee or his
witnesses to establish the case of the
employer/disciplinary authority evidently, the Enquiry
Officer cannot be said to have an open mind. The very
fact that he presents the case of the employer and
supports the case of the employer is sufficient to hold
that the Enquiry Officer does not have an open mind.”
33. The Division Bench after elaborately considering the
issue summarised the principles in para 16 which is to the
following effect:
“ 16 . We may summarise the principles thus:
( i ) The Enquiry Officer, who is in the position of
a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in
the position of a prosecutor.
__________
Page13 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
( ii ) It is not necessary for the disciplinary
authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each
and every inquiry. Non-appointment of a Presenting
Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.
( iii ) The Enquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at
the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to
the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses.
In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Enquiry
Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses
to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the
delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses
on those clarifications.
( iv ) If the Enquiry Officer conducts a regular
examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution
witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading
questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with
answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or
puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution
case employee, the Enquiry Officer acts as prosecutor
thereby vitiating the inquiry.
( v ) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself
will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that
the Enquiry Officer can put questions to any or all
witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an
Enquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will
have to be decided with reference to the manner in
which the evidence is let in and recorded in the
inquiry.
Whether an Enquiry Officer has merely acted only as an
Enquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer
depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any
allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being
declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears
to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in
simple cases. Be that as it may.”
__________
Page14 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
36. Thus, the question as to whether the Enquiry Officer
who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has
acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to
be decided on the facts and proceedings of a particular
case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court
had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after
perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the
conclusion that the Enquiry Officer himself led the
examination-in-chief of the prosecution witness by putting
questions. The High Court further held that the Enquiry Officer
acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary
enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already
been noticed from paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High
Court giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court authored by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice
R.V. Raveendran, Chief Justice, as he then was. The principle laid down therein
is that the mere absence of a Presenting Officer would not, by itself, vitiate the
enquiry. Whether the Enquiry Officer had acted as a Presenting Officer has to
be determined with reference to the manner in which the evidence was adduced
and recorded during the enquiry.
17. On a perusal of the depositions furnished along with the typed set of
papers, this Court finds that, though the Enquiry Officer put certain questions to
the witnesses, the answers elicited were not the result of leading questions. The
__________
Page15 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
questions were put to the witnesses to elicit a statement regarding the
circumstances in which they had been cited as witnesses. Therefore, considering
the fact that the petitioner did not raise any objection regarding the non-
appointment of a Presenting Officer and the conduct of the Enquiry Officer,
during enquiry, this Court finds no substance in the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel that the Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor. Accordingly, the
said contention is also liable to be rejected.
18. The third legal ground raised by the petitioner relates to the presence
of one Jayalakshmi, the Investigating Officer, during the enquiry. It is not in
dispute that the Investigating Officer was present throughout and that her
signature was also obtained along with the signatures of the witnesses.
However, as already observed, if the petitioner had any apprehension that her
presence would influence or deter the witnesses from giving evidence, he could
have objected to her presence at the time of their examination.
19. It is pertinent to reiterate that the petitioner was not left to defend his
case without assistance; rather, he was ably assisted by an Advocate who was
legally trained. In such circumstances, having participated in the enquiry
throughout, which was conducted pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the petitioner's attempt to raise this objection at a belated stage
__________
Page16 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
cannot be countenanced. On a consideration of the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel, this Court finds that no serious prejudice has been
demonstrated. Therefore, the contention that the presence of the Investigating
Officer, Jayalakshmi, prejudiced the petitioner's defence is also liable to be
rejected.
20. The next contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner relates to the examination of witnesses in the absence of the
petitioner. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the enquiry
report dated 21.12.2022. On a perusal of the enquiry report, it is evident that,
though some of the witnesses were initially examined in the absence of the
petitioner, they were re-examined in his presence immediately after he raised an
objection. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity
to cross-examine those witnesses and that he cross-examined them without
raising any further objection. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that,
though some witnesses were initially examined in the absence of the petitioner,
they were subsequently examined in his presence and were effectively cross-
examined by him. In view of the opportunity thus afforded to the petitioner, the
contention regarding the examination of witnesses in his absence is liable to be
rejected. Accordingly, even this legal ground also does not warrant interference
with the impugned order.
__________
Page17 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
21. Coming to the factual aspect, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner specifically contended that there was no evidence against the
petitioner and that one of the witnesses was not made available for cross-
examination. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, one
Mr.Barani Kumar did not appear for cross-examination by the delinquent
employee. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that, as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar , reported in
(2009) 12 SCC 78, where a delinquent employee faces a serious charge of
corruption, the charge must be proved to the hilt. However, according to the
learned Senior Counsel, in the present case, the disciplinary authority arrived at
its conclusion merely on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities. This
Court is, however, unable to accept the submission made by the learned Senior
Counsel.
22. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant
portions of paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 37 of the judgment in Gyan Chand
Chattar’s case (cited supra), which read as follows:-
“20. So far as Charge 6 i.e. asking for 1% commission for
making the payment of pay allowances is concerned, the learned
Single Judge has appreciated the evidence of all the witnesses
examined in this regard and came to the conclusion that not a
single person had deposed before the enquiry officer that the
respondent employee had asked any person to pay 1% commission
for making payment of their allowances. It was based on hearsay
__________
Page18 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
statements. All the witnesses stated that this could be the
motive/reason for not making the payment.
21. Such a serious charge of corruption requires to be
proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences
upon the employee concerned. He would be liable to be
prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty
awardable in such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of
quasi-criminal nature was required to be proved beyond any
shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere
probabilities.
22. Witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer that
they have heard that the said respondent was asking but none of
them was able to point out who was that person who had been
asked to pay 1% commission. One of such witnesses deposed
that some unknown person had told him. Learned Single Judge
came to the conclusion that the knowledge of the witnesses in this
regard was based on “hearsay statement of some unknown
persons whom they did not know”. This was certainly not legal
evidence to sustain such a serious charge of corruption against
an employee.
37. There could be no case of substantial misdemeanour
against the respondent on either of the aforesaid charges except
Charge 6 on which major penalty could be imposed. Charge 6 is
totally vague and no enquiry could be conducted against the
respondent on such a charge. It was basically a case of no
evidence on any charge except Charges 4 and 5. In fact, it was a
simple case where the respondent employee failed to prove to be a
tactful person or possessing a high standard of administrative
capability or firmness or a man possessing quality of leadership. It
might be a case of his indecisiveness or lack of presence of mind.
It cannot be held that any of the aforesaid charges except Charge
6, may warrant imposition of major punishment of removal. Thus,
no interference is required in the matter.”
(emphasis supplied)
__________
Page19 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
23. In the case in hand, the complainant, who allegedly handed over the
bribe amount, was examined. The witnesses who participated in the trap
proceedings were also examined. Apart from them, one of the petitioner's
subordinate staff members was examined. The witnesses explained the
circumstances surrounding the occurrence. Therefore, the contention of the
learned Senior Counsel that there is no evidence against the petitioner and that
the findings were arrived at merely on the basis of the preponderance of
probabilities is liable to be rejected. Though it is well-settled principle of law
that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is the preponderance of
probabilities, having regard to the nature of the witnesses examined and the
statements made by them, this Court finds that the evidence relied upon by the
management in the present case is sufficient to sustain the findings recorded by
the disciplinary authority.
24. The decision in Gyan Chand Chattar’s case (cited supra) was
rendered in the context of its peculiar facts, wherein the witnesses were hearsay
witnesses, the charges were vague and the witnesses relied upon were not
competent to establish the factual allegations. However, the facts of the present
case are entirely different. Therefore, the said judgment is distinguishable and is
not applicable to the facts of the present case.
__________
Page20 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
25. Though the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the recent judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P.
Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors. , reported in 2026:INSC:305, to contend
that witnesses must be examined to prove the documents, in the present case,
the witnesses connected with the relevant documents were examined before the
disciplinary authority. Therefore, the said judgment does not advance the case
of the petitioner.
26. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the non-supply of the
video footage. It is incumbent upon the management to furnish the documents
relied upon by it to establish the charges. In the present case, the video footage
was not within the custody or control of the management but was in the
possession of the Police Officials. Further, the management did not rely upon
the said video footage in support of the charges. In such circumstances, the
petitioner cannot insist that the management should produce a document that
was neither relied upon by it nor within its custody or control. Therefore, the
contention that prejudice was caused to the petitioner on account of the non-
supply of the video footage is also liable to be rejected.
27. Though the learned Senior Counsel relied upon various judicial
precedents on the legal issues, the said precedents would not come to the aid of
__________
Page21 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
the petitioner, as the facts of the present case are distinguishable. In this regard,
it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani , reported in (2004) 8 SCC 579,
wherein it has been held that even one different fact may make world of
difference. Coming to the question of punishment, this Court, having arrived at
the conclusion that the charge of corruption is proved, any punishment lesser
than dismissal from service would be inadequate. Therefore, the question of
interfering with the punishment imposed also does not arise.
28. Apart from the above contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied
upon several circumstances to contend that the findings recorded by the
disciplinary authority are perverse. However, on a perusal of the report of the
disciplinary authority as well as the report of the Enquiry Officer, this Court is
unable to find any perversity in the findings recorded. Even if any of the
submissions made by the petitioner were to warrant a different view, the same
would, at best, lead to an alternative possible conclusion. Such a possibility, by
itself, would not constitute a ground for interference with the impugned order in
the exercise of the power of judicial review. To put it precisely, there is no
perversity in the impugned order.
__________
Page22 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the firm view that
no grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
30 -10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police) (XVII) Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director
Department of Fire and Rescue Service,
No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
__________
Page23 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )
2026:MHC:4387
WP No. 4123 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
Pre-Delivery Order in
WP No. 4123 of 2024
30-10-2026
__________
Page24 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:40:37 pm )