Disciplinary findings warrant no judicial interference absent perversity or contradiction with the record.

The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, challenged the Government Order dated 18 July 2023 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on two charges: first, failure to report the purchase of a Mahindra Bolero Jeep in his wife’s name; and second, misappropriation of 714 grams of gold and 1.58 kilograms of silver allegedly recovered during the investigation of a robbery at a pawn broker’s shop.

The petitioner contended that the vehicle had been purchased by his wife through a State Bank of India hire-purchase loan and that the complainant had no documentary proof of possessing jewellery beyond what had been returned to him by the Court.

The respondents relied on a departmental circular requiring police personnel to disclose purchases of movable and immovable property by their dependants and submitted that the complainant’s evidence was sufficient in disciplinary proceedings, where proof beyond reasonable doubt was not required.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to inform the Department about the purchase of the Mahindra Bolero Jeep in his wife’s name constituted a violation of the applicable Government Servants’ Conduct Rules and departmental circulars.

Whether the finding that the petitioner misappropriated 714 grams of gold and 1.58 kilograms of silver was perverse or unsupported by the evidence available in the disciplinary proceedings.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, should interfere with the disciplinary authority’s findings and the punishment of compulsory retirement.

The Court applied the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, together with departmental circular CRS-1/146118/2000 dated 19 July 2000, which required Government servants to disclose relevant transactions and purchases made by their dependants.

The Court held that departmental circulars issued by the competent authority could operate alongside the applicable Conduct Rules and bind the employee unless successfully challenged.

It further applied the principle that disciplinary findings are assessed on the basis of the material and probability available in the departmental enquiry, and not by the criminal-law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Judicial review under Article 226 is limited: the Court may interfere where the disciplinary finding is perverse, contrary to the evidence, or procedurally defective, but cannot reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible.

Regarding the first charge, the Court noted that the vehicle had been purchased in 2008, whereas the petitioner claimed that his wife’s silk-saree business commenced only in 2011.

Although the vehicle was acquired under a hire-purchase arrangement, the wife’s loan of Rs. 4 lakhs was discharged within a short period through cash payments, and the source of those funds was not satisfactorily established.

The Court therefore accepted the inference that the purchase was probably financed from the petitioner’s resources.

Independently, even assuming that the wife had purchased the vehicle from her own funds, the petitioner admittedly failed to report the transaction as required by the departmental circular, sustaining the first charge.

As to the second charge, the Court acknowledged the absence of documentary records establishing that the complainant possessed jewellery beyond what had been returned by the Court.

Nevertheless, the complainant had been examined before the Enquiry Officer, gave an account based on his memory and the placement of the jewellery in different trays, and his evidence was not materially discredited.

The Court considered the absence of demonstrated mala fides or prior enmity, the serious nature of the allegation, and the petitioner’s position as a police officer, and held that there was no sufficient basis to reject the complainant’s testimony.

Since the findings were supported by available material and were not perverse, the limited scope of judicial review did not permit interference.

The failure to disclose the vehicle purchase violated the applicable departmental requirements, and the finding of misappropriation was reasonably based on the complainant’s evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

The challenge to the Government Order dated 18 July 2023 imposing compulsory retirement was rejected.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.