THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs G.MANICKAM (H.C 1719)

2026:MHC:3578
WA No. 3251 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WA Nos. 3251 and 3256 of 2023
AND
CMP Nos. 26521 and 26529 OF 2023
W.A.No.3251 of 2023
1. The Commissioner Of Police
City Police Office, Madurai City, Madurai.
2. The Director General Of Police
City Police Offfice, Madurai City Madurai
..Appellants
Vs
G.Manickam (h.C 1719)
Special Sub Inspector, E3 Anna Nagar Crime PS,
O.D At SB C.I. D Madurai City, Res at Plot No 19,
Arul Nagar, K.Puliyamkulam Village,
Chekkanurani Post, Tirumangalam Taluk,
Madurai District.
..Respondent(s)
WA No. 3256 of 2023
1. The Secretary To Government
Home Department (POL Vi), Fort St George,
Chennai-09.
2. The Director General Of Police
Chennai.
3. The Commissioner Of Police
City Police Office, Madurai City, Madurai.
..Appellants
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 11:35:29 am )

2026:MHC:3578
WA No. 3251 of 2023
Vs
G.Manickam(h.C 1719)
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in WA No. 3251 of 2023 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters
Patent to set aside the order passed in WP.No.16744 of 2007, dated
05.11.2020.
Prayer in WA No. 3256 of 2023 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters
Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in
WP.No.16745 of 2007, dated 05-11-2020.
In both W.As.
For Appellant(s): Mr.A.R.Suresh,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Manivasagam
For M/s.M.Manivasagam Associates
For Sole Respondent
Common Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
State preferred the present intra court appeals challenging the writ order
dated 05.11.2020 in W.P.Nos.16744 and 16745 of 2007.
2. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
respondent based on the criminal case registered in pursuance to the
directions issued by the State Human Rights Commission. Admittedly, the
criminal case ended with an order of acquittal.
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 11:35:29 am )

2026:MHC:3578
WA No. 3251 of 2023
3. Learned counsel for the respondent would mainly contend that the
departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all the delinquent
officers involved in the Human Rights cases and in respect of the co-
delinquents, the punishment imposed by the department was set aside. On
similar lines, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, set aside the
order of punishment.
4. This Court is of the considered view that, once the co-delinquents are
exonerated from the departmental disciplinary proceedings by setting aside
the order of punishment, the case of the respondent herein alone cannot be
singled out and he is also entitled for the relief as granted in favour of the co-
delinquents.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader would raise an apprehension
that the learned Single Judge made a finding that the Director General of
Police has no review power under Rule 15A (1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu
Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
6. In this regard, the Full Bench at Madurai Bench of this Court in the
order dated 14.02.2020 in W.A.(MD) No.686 of 2015 (Director General of
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 11:35:29 am )

2026:MHC:3578
WA No. 3251 of 2023
Police -vs- C.Vijaya Bhaskar) has ruled that the Director General of Police
is empowered to exercise the power of review under Rule 15A. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder.
“ 43.On a literal interpretation of the word ‘or’ used in Rule
15A(1) of the Rules would certainly bar the review of an order
of Disciplinary Authority, simultaneously by the appellate
authority as well as the Head of the Department. When the
word ‘and’ is not used or ‘or and ‘and’ are used as
conjunctives, it is impossible to derive a meaning, which would
favour the exercising of power of suo motu review by higher
authorities simultaneously to review the same order of
Disciplinary Authority. If the rule is so interpreted to pave way
for Head of the Department or the State Government to
review the order passed by the original authority successively,
that will invite undesired results leading to multiplicity of
proceedings or conflicting decisions. Such an interpretation
will be against public policy insofar as Rule 15A(1) of Tamil
Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1955, is concerned.
44.Considering the fact that the show cause notice
impugned in the Writ Petition refers to the proceedings of the
second appellant, dated 31.03.2011 and the second appellant,
namely, the Commissioner of Police has not given any special
reason relating to merits, we are of the view that the show
cause notice, dated 25.10.2011 itself can be treated as a
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 11:35:29 am )

2026:MHC:3578
WA No. 3251 of 2023
notice proposing to review the order of second appellant,
dated 31.03.2011. We make it clear that the Head of
Department or the State Government can either enhance or
remit the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority,
while reviewing the order of the Appellate Authority or the
Head of the Department, as the case may be, since the order
of Disciplinary Authority merges with that of the Appellate
Authority / Head of the Department. Accordingly, the Writ
Appeal is allowed and the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.13611
of 2011, dated 12.07.2013 is set aside. The respondent is
given an opportunity to file his response / explanation to the
show cause notice, dated 25.10.2011 within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
On receipt of such explanation from the respondent, the first
appellant shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of such explanation from the respondent. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
7.Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Director
General of Police has no review power alone is set aside in view of the ruling
of the Full Bench of this Court in the case cited supra. As far as the setting
aside of punishment is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere, since
the punishment imposed by the Department on the co-delinquents was set
aside by the Court.
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 11:35:29 am )

2026:MHC:3578
WA No. 3251 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J.
KST
8. With the above observations, the above writ appeals are disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.)
28-08-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KST
WA Nos. 3251 of 2023
AND
WA NO. 3256 OF 2023
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 11:35:29 am )