M.Vinothkumar vs The Director General of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.09.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
and
WMP.No.14714 of 2022
M.Vinothkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
E.V.K.Sampath Road,
Veppery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Armed Reserve-II,
Greater Chennai Police. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the second respondent passed in his PR.No.74/PR.V(2)/2019 dated
13.05.2020, imposing a punishment of “Removal from service and
consequential order passed by the first respondent in the
Rc.No.570627/AP.3(2)/2020 dated 10.11.2021, confirming the punishment
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in
service with all consequential monetary and service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvam
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi,
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed
by the second respondent in PR.No.74/PR.V(2)/2019 dated 13.05.2020,
imposing the punishment of “Removal from Service”, and the consequential
order passed by the first respondent in Rc.No.570627/AP.3(2)/2020 dated
10.11.2021, confirming the punishment, and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with
all consequential monetary and service benefits.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present
Writ Petition are that, since the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for 21
days, a charge memorandum was issued to him on 09.03.2019. Thereafter,
summons were served on him and, after completion of the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 22.07.2019. Thereafter, a second
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
show cause notice was served upon the petitioner along with the enquiry
report. After complying with the due procedure, the final order was passed
against the petitioner on 07.09.2019, imposing the punishment of withholding
of increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner did not challenge the
said punishment. However, the Appellate Authority, viz., the second
respondent, suo motu reviewed the punishment imposed against the petitioner
by invoking the power under Section 15-A(1)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. In the suo motu
review, the second respondent enhanced the punishment to that of removal
from service, vide order dated 13.05.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred a review before the first respondent. However, after
taking into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner, the first
respondent was of the view that there were no grounds to modify the
punishment. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very
order passed by the second respondent is vexatious, arbitrary and illegal and
is in violation of the provisions of the Rules as well as the principles of
natural justice. It is his submission that no opportunity was given to the
petitioner before enhancing the punishment. It is also the contention of the
3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
learned counsel that only after providing a reasonable opportunity to the
petitioner, the Appellate Authority can suo motu enhance the punishment. In
the case in hand, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no
reasonable opportunity was given to him. He would further submit that the
petitioner had justified his absence on account of a family dispute. Hence, he
prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.
4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents would contend that the petitioner was absent from
01.11.2018 for more than 21 days and that this was not the first occurrence. It
was the seventh such occurrence within a period of seven years of his service
and the petitioner had come to adverse notice on six earlier occasions for
similar serious misconduct. The learned Special Government Pleader would
further submit that the respondents had complied with all statutory
procedures as well as the principles of natural justice. The past conduct of the
petitioner is a relevant factor for determining the quantum of punishment and
not a ground for imposing an enhanced punishment without due process. He
would further submit that the respondents had followed the procedure in its
proper perspective. Since the petitioner had been continuously committing
misconduct, there was no necessity to take a lenient view, particularly in the
4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
Police Force qua disciplined force. If the desertion of the petitioner is dealt
with lightly, it would send a wrong signal to the fellow police personnel and
would have the effect of weakening discipline in the uniformed services.
Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
6. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the principles of natural justice was not followed by the
second respondent, before suo motu enhancing the punishment. On perusal of
the impugned order, the second respondent has referred to the show cause
notice issued to the petitioner on 16.03.2020 and the explanation submitted
by him on 10.04.2020. Even in the order passed by the second respondent, it
has been categorically mentioned that a prior show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner, expressing the contemplation of the Appellate Authority to
enhance the punishment. Therefore, the very contention that the principles of
natural justice were not followed cannot be accepted, as the same is evidently
falsified by the reference made by the respondents in the order dated
13.05.2020.
5/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
7. Now, the point for consideration is whether the punishment of
removal from service is disproportionate to the charge or not.
8. In this case, the charge against the petitioner is that he deserted duty
for 21 days. No doubt, in normal circumstances and in any other service, it
may, to some extent, be considered as disproportionate punishment. However,
the same is always subject to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
case in hand, we are dealing with an employee who is a Police Constable who
is a member of uniformed service. The standard of discipline in uniformed
services is of paramount importance. Even the slightest deviation may lead to
irreparable and irredeemable consequences. Therefore, in such circumstances,
in order to maintain strict discipline, any deviation in the uniformed service
has to be dealt with sternly.
9. In the case in hand, the disciplinary authority had considered the
matter and imposed the punishment of withholding of increment. However,
the Appellate Authority, suo motu, took cognizance of the matter and also
took into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner, viz., that within
seven years, he had suffered punishment on six occasions. The Appellate
Authority expressed its opinion as to the proposed enhancement of
6/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
punishment, referred to the relevant reasons and called for an explanation
from the petitioner. Only after receiving the explanation, the punishment was
enhanced.
10. To put it differently, the past conduct of the petitioner was brought
to his notice and, before enhancing the punishment, an opportunity was given
to him to submit his explanation. It is relevant to refer to the settled principles
governing the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whenever this Court
exercises the power of judicial review, the same should be exercised within
the following contours:-
(i) whether the principles of natural justice have been
complied with;
(ii) whether the finding of misconduct is based on some
evidence;
(iii) whether the statutory Rules governing the conduct of the
disciplinary authority have been observed;
(iv) whether the finding of the disciplinary authority suffers
from perversity; and
(v) whether the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the
proved misconduct.
11. Insofar as the principles of natural justice are concerned, this Court
has already answered that the respondents have duly complied with the same.
7/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
12. Coming to the findings with regard to the misconduct, compliance
with the statutory Rules and the alleged perversity in the findings of the
disciplinary authority, cannot be ground here, as the petitioner did not
challenge the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer. But his only
grievance is with regard to the punishment. In respect of the punishment, the
power of this Court is limited to the extent of examining whether the
punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved misconduct.
13. Before delving into this aspect, it is relevant to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others ,
reported in 2009 (13) SCC 102, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that, while imposing punishment, the past conduct of the delinquent
employee is a material factor to be taken into consideration for deciding the
quantum of punishment. In the case in hand, the charge relates to desertion,
which is a serious misconduct insofar as a disciplined force is concerned. The
petitioner had suffered adverse findings in respect of similar charges on
earlier occasions, and the same was brought to the notice of the delinquent.
The said past conduct was also taken into consideration by the Appellate
Authority before enhancing the punishment.
8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
14. It is also relevant to mention that the order of dismissal is not based
on the cumulative effect of continuing misconduct, proving incorrigibility
and complete unfitness for Police service. The charge which the petitioner
faces, by itself, is sufficient to impose the capital punishment. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that, since this is the seventh misconduct, the petitioner
cannot expect leniency from this Court.
15. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity in
the approach adopted by the Appellate Authority. A person who has been
repeatedly committing similar misconduct cannot expect every such
misconduct to be dealt with leniently. Here, according to the submissions of
the learned Special Government Pleader, the Department had dealt with the
petitioner leniently on the earlier six occasions.
16. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court does not find
any disproportionality in the punishment imposed, particularly in the
backdrop of the past conduct of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds no
perversity in the impugned orders and there is no merit in the present Writ
Petition.
9/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
17. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
02.09.2026
kv
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
E.V.K.Sampath Road,
Veppery, Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Armed Reserve-II,
Greater Chennai Police.
10/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )
2026:MHC:3599
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
W.P.No.15535 of 2022
02.09.2026
11/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 08:14:48 pm )