Madras HC Quashes 22-Year Disciplinary Proceedings Against Policeman For Merely Seeking Permission To Form Police Association, Orders Retirement Benefits Within 12 Weeks

The petitioner faced a charge memo dated 14 November 2004 containing two charges arising from his representations to the Director General of Police and the Chief Minister’s Special Cell seeking permission to form a police association.

The disciplinary proceedings continued without a final order; an inquiry-related memo dated 23 October 2013 found the charges proved and sought his explanation.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings and, after retiring subject to their outcome, sought settlement of his retirement benefits.

The State confirmed that no final punishment had been imposed and that no other disciplinary proceedings were pending against him.

The Court stated that an employee may submit representations to higher authorities and that the authorities may decide whether to grant the request; the mere submission of a representation cannot, without more, be treated as misconduct or be the basis for a departmental charge memo.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for this principle.

It records that the inquiry officer recommended punishment under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, but does not analyse that rule.

The charges concerned only the petitioner’s act of making representations to the DGP and the Chief Minister’s Special Cell.

Applying its view that making such representations was not, by itself, misconduct, the Court found the charges flimsy and legally unsustainable.

It also considered that the proceedings had remained unresolved for more than two decades, had made no progress since 2007, and that the petitioner had retired; the State confirmed there were no other pending disciplinary proceedings.

It allowed all three writ petitions, quashed the proceedings challenged in W.P. Nos. 15570 of 2007 and 31204 of 2013, and directed the respondents to process and settle the petitioner’s pensionary and retirement benefits within twelve weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.