GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS versus S. VEL RAJ

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 19-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS 
v. 
S. VEL RAJ 
DECEMBER 19, 1996 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Service Law-Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipli11e a11d 
Appeal) Rules J95~Rule 2-Departmental E11quiry for misco11duct-Pe11al-
ty-Police Officer appeqri11g before Supeiior Officer i11 'Mufti' a11d i11 dru11ken 
C co11ditio11 while 011 duty-Gross misconduct a11d is "good a11d sufficie11t 
reaso11" for i11itiati11g departmental proceedi11g a11d for imposi11g of the pu11ish-
me11 t of compulsory retireme11t-Chargesheet-Authority compete11t to 
issue-Need 11ot be issued by the appointi11g auth01ity-Evide11ce led i11 the 
e11quiry-Reappreciatio11 of-Tribu11al can11ot re-exami11e the evide11ce whe11 
D it was 11ot co11tended that the fi11di11gs arrived at 011 the basis of the evidmce 
is perverse. 
The respondent, a Head Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police was 
chargesheeted for having been found in the drunken state and in 'Mufti' 
while he was on duty. Charge Memo was issued by the Deputy Superinten-
E dent of Police who was not the appointing authority. On enquiry, the 
charges were held to be proved and by way of punishment he was reverted 
as Constable Grade-I. The respondent appealed against the order, but the 
appellate authority was of the view that the punishment was lenient and it 
issued a show cause notice for enhancement of the penalty. IBtimately he 
was compulsorily retired. The respondent challenged the discipli-
F nary enquiry and the punishment, and the Tribunal allowed the applica-
tion and quashed the order of punishment and directed his reinstatement 
with all consequential benefits. Against the said decision of the Tribunal 
the State Government has preferred the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Tribunal was wrong in holding that there was no valid 
initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against the respondent because 
the chargesheet was issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is 
not the appointing authority. There is nothing in the Rules which requires 
H that the charge memo has to be issued only by the appointing authority or 
452 
GOVT.OFT.N.v. S.VELRAJ(NANAVATI,J.) 
an authority holding a higher rank. [455-D-E; 454-H; 455-A] 
453 
Inspector General of Police v. Thavasiappan, [1996] 2 SCC 145, relied 
on. 
A 
2. The Tribunal transgressed its jurisdiction in examining the 
evidence as if it was an appellate authority. The Tribunal committed a B 
mistake in re-examining the evidence and holding that it did not deserve 
to be accepted because of the inconsistencies therein. The Tribunal was 
not holding a criminal trial and therefore ought not to have exonerated 
the respondent by holding that it was not proved "beyond all doubts that 
the appellant had consumed prohibited liquour". The findings recorded by C 
the Enquiry Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority were based 
upon evidence led during the enquiry and it was not even contended that 
the findings were perverse. It was therefore, not open to the Tribunal to 
record contrary findings and holding that the charge against the respon-
dent was not proved. [455-F-H] 
3.1. The Tribunal was also wrong in holding that what was alleged 
against the respondent did not amount to an act of 'Misconduct'. Under 
. 
I 
Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and 
D 
Appeal) Rules, 1955, punishment can be imposed upon a member of the 
service for "Good and sufficient reason". The Tribunal ought to have E . 
examined the case from that angle. The "drunken state" of the respondent 
and his being in 'Mufti' while on duty is gross misconduct and it is good 
and sufficient reason for initiating departmental proceeding and imposing 
of the punishment of compulsory retirement. [ 456·A·C] 
3.2. The Police has to be a dl.sclplined force and the member of the F 
Police force has to behave in a disciplined manner particularly when he is 
on duty. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, the punishment 
imposed upon the respondent is not excessive. [456-C-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9385 of G 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.94 of the Tamil Nadu 
Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 271 of 1992. 
Arputham & Co. for the Appellants. 
H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996J SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A 
S. Srinivasan for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
NANAVATI, J.: This appeal was heard along with 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.