{"id":17599,"date":"2005-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005"},"modified":"2017-07-26T16:40:27","modified_gmt":"2017-07-26T11:10:27","slug":"state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 08\/04\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE.P. SATHASIVAM         \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTSICE. S.K. KRISHNAN        \n\nW.P.No.10957 of 2004  \nand W.P.Nos. 10958 to 10961  and 20590 to 20603  of 2004  \nand \nW.P.M.Ps.Nos.12858, 12860, 12862, 12864, 12866, 24778,    \n24780, 24782, 24784, 24786, 24788, 24790, 24792, 24794,  \n24796, 24798, 24800 of 2004 \n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu\n   Represented  by its Secretary to Government\n   Home (Police) Department,  Chennai-9.\n2.Director General of Police,\n   Kamarajar Salai,  Chennai-4.\n3.Deputy Inspector General of Police\n   Salem Range, Salem. \n4.Superintendent of Police\n   Dharmapuri District.        ..Petitioners  in W.P.No.20590\n                                to 20603 of 2004\n\n1.Director General of Police\n   Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-4.\n2.State of Tamil Nadu\n   Represented  by its Secretary to\n   Government \n   Home(Police) Department \n   Chennai-9.\n3.Deputy Inspector General of Police\n   Salem Range, Salem.  ...Petitioners in W.P.No.10957  to 10961 2004\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.S.Mahalingam  \n   (Ex.Gr.IPC 1387)\n  Dharmapuri  through the\n  Deputy Inspector General of Police\n  Salem.\n2.The Registrar\n   Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal\n   Chennai-104.              ....Respondents  in W.P.No.20590\n                                to 20603 of 20 04\n1.K. Annamalai \n(Ex.PC.1308) \nDharmapuri, through  the\nDeputy  Inspector General of Police\nSalem. \n2.The Registrar\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal\nChennai-600 104.            ...Respondents  in W.P.No.10957  to 10961\n of 2004\n\nW.Ps.Nos.20590 to 20603 of  2004  \n\n                Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of\nIndia  to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the order\ndated 30.4.2003 in O.A.No.1354 of 2003 on the file of  the  second  respondent\nand quash the same. \n\nW.Ps.Nos.10957 to 10961 of 2004  \n\n                Writ  Petition  filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the  order\ndated  30.4.2003  in  O.A.No.1385 of 2003 on the file of the second respondent\nand quash the same. \n\n\n!For Petitioners :  Mr.A.L.  Somayaji, Additional Advocate General\n                Assisted by Mr.D.Krishnakumar, Special Government Pleader\n\n^For Respondent No.1 in W.P.No.10957 to 10961 of 2004:  Mr.R.  Gandhi  \n                Senior Counsel for Mr.R.G.  Narendhiran\n\nFor Respondent No.1 in W.P.Nos.20590, 20595, 20600,   \n                20602 and 20603 of 2004 :  Mr.R.subramanian\n\nFor Respondent No.1 in W.P.Nos.20591, 20597 of 2004:  Mr.S.V.  Jayaraman   \n                Senior Counsel for Mr.T.  Dhanasekaran\n\n:COMMON ORDER      \n\nS.K.  KRISHNAN, J.  \n<\/pre>\n
                Aggrieved by the common order dated 30.4.2003  passed  by  the
\nTamil   Nadu  Administrative  Tribunal,  Chennai,  the  respondents  in  O.As.
\nNos.1353 to 1357, 1384, 1385, 1426 to 1428, 1463, 1464,  1527,  1528,  15  45,
\n1546, 1669 and 1339 of 2003, have filed the above Writ Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   Since  the  issue  involved  in  these  petitions and the
\nparties are one and the same, they were heard together and disposed  of  by  a
\ncommon order.   For the sake of convenience, we call the parties as arrayed in
\nW.P.No.20590 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  The facts leading to the filing of  these  Writ  Petitions
\nare summarised as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                4.    In  the  year  1997,  on  the  basis  of  the  petitions
\ncomplaining that the police personnel working in Karimangalam  Police  Station
\nwere collecting  mamools  from  the  bootleggers,  sellers of I.D.  Arrack and
\nToddy with the connivance of Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector Police  and
\nthe  same  were shared among them, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Officials
\nof Salem  and  Dharmapuri  conducted  surprise  raid  on  7.5.1997.      After
\npreliminary  enquiry,  disciplinary  action  was  initiated  against 23 Police
\nPersonnel for the following delinquency.\n<\/p>\n
                “Indisciplinary  conduct  by  collecting  bribe  amount   from
\nprohibition  offenders in Karimangalam Police Station limits during the period
\nfrom 3\/96 to 5\/97.”\n<\/p>\n
                5.  Out of 23 personnel, Head Constable 603  Nmarasimhan  died
\non 25.9.2002  and the charge against him was abated.  Out of 22 personnel, the
\nfollowing three personnel retired from service on the date  mentioned  against
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
                Thiru.  M.  Vairakkannu, Inspector of Police – 31.5.1997
\n                Thiru.  Durairaj, Grade I Police Constable – 31.7.1998
\n                Thiru.Kolandai, Grade I Police Constable – 31.1.2000\n<\/p>\n
                6.  Thereafter, on the basis of PR initiated against the first
\nrespondents in  all  these  petitions,  they  were dismissed from service.  As
\nagainst  such  dismissal,  they  approached  the  Tamil  Nadu   Administrative
\nTribunal,  which by its order dated 30.4.2003, directed the petitioners herein
\nto reinstate them.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners invoking  the
\njurisdiction of this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
\nhave filed the above Writ Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
                9.   The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
\npetitioners would contend that the Tribunal has not appreciated  the  evidence
\nwith   regard  to  charge  memo  and  also  the  findings  of  the  Additional
\nSuperintendent of Police, PEW, Dharmapuri and thereby erred in  setting  aside
\nthe  entire disciplinary proceedings against the first respondents and in such
\ncircumstances, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority on the findings
\nof the disciplinary authority and therefore, the order of the Tribunal has  to
\nbe set aside by allowing these petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                10.    Further,  he  would  vehemently  contend  that  if  the
\ncorruptive first respondents are reinstated  in  service,  the  image  of  the
\npolice  force  will  be tarnished among the public and therefore, the order of
\nthe Tribunal has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  In support of his contention, he relied on the  following
\ndecisions:\n<\/p>\n
                a.  LALIT  POPLI  VS.   CANARA BANK AND OTHERS((2003)3 SUPREME
\nCOURT CASES 583).\n<\/p>\n
                b.  U.P.S.R.T.C.   AND  OTHERS  VS.    HAR  NARAIN  SINGH  AND
\nOTHERS((1998)9 SUPREME COURT CASES 220).\n<\/p>\n
                c.  REGIONAL  MANAGER,  U.P.  SRTC, ETAWAH AND OTHERS ((2003)3
\nSUPREME COURT CASES 605).\n<\/p>\n
                12.  Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for  the
\nfirst  respondents would contend that as there is no evidence and materials to
\nprove the charge, the Tribunal came to the right conclusion by  setting  aside
\nall  the  disciplinary  proceedings  and directed the petitioners to reinstate
\nthem and therefore, no interference of this Court is warranted.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  Further, the learned Senior Counsel  would  contend  that
\nthe  reinstatement  of the first respondents, would not in any way tarnish the
\nimage of the Police Department as they have not committed such  indisciplinary
\nconduct.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel
\nrelied on the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
                a.  SHER BAHADUR VS.  UNION OF  INDIA  AND  OTHERS  ((2002)  7
\nSUPREME COURT CASES 142).\n<\/p>\n
                b.  FOOD  CORPORATION  OF  INDIA, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS VS.  A.
\nPRAHALADA RAO AND ANOTHER ((2001) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 165).\n<\/p>\n
                c.  KULDEEP  SINGH   VS.      COMMISSIONER   OF   POLICE   AND
\nOTHERS((1999) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 10).\n<\/p>\n
                15.   The  learned counsel appearing for the first respondents
\nin W.P.No.20590, 20595 of 2004 etc., relied on the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
                a.  KULDEEP SINGH VS.  THE COMMISSIONER  OF  POLICE  &  OTHERS
\n(1998(9) SUPREME 452).\n<\/p>\n
                b.  UNION OF  INDIA  VS.    K.A.    KITTU  AND OTHERS ((2001)1
\nSUPREME COURT CASES 65).\n<\/p>\n
                c.  SRI  PALANI  DHANDAYUTHAPANI  DEVASTHANAM  REP.    BY  ITS
\nEXECUTIVE OFFICER, D.    RAMACHANDRAN,  PALANI-621 601 VS.  THE COMMERCIAL TAX
\nOFFICER, PALANI CIRCLE II, PALANI (2002-1-L.W.318).\n<\/p>\n
                16.  On a perusal of the proceedings of the third  respondent,
\nit  is  revealed  that  the  first  respondents were charged for the following
\ndelinquency.            “Indisciplinary conduct  by  collecting  bribe  amount
\nfrom  prohibition  offenders  in Karimangalam PS limits during the period from
\n3\/96 to 5\/97.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  The specific charges framed against the first respondents
\nare as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                a.  Charge No.1:  The first respondents have joined hands with
\nprohibition  offenders  of  Karimangalam  Police   Station   limits   promoted
\nprohibition offences; organised prohibition mamool systems and were collecting
\nweekly prohibition  mamool  regularly  from  Toddy and I.D.  Arrack sellers in
\nKarimangalam Police Station limits and during the surprise check conducted  on
\n7.5.1997  between  12.00  hours  and  14.00  hours by Deputy Superintendent of
\nPolice, Vigilance  and  AntiCorruption,  Dharmapuri  with  the  assistance  of
\nDistrict  Inspection  Cell  Officer  a  sum  of  Rs.7805\/-  being  the  weekly
\nprohibition mamool collected upto 7.5.1997 found in the left  side  drawer  of
\nthe wooden table of Thiru.C.Madhu, Station Writer, along with chits and papers
\ncontaining  the  details  of  prohibition mamool account and other expenditure
\nwere also seized.\n<\/p>\n
                b.  Charge No.2:  The accused officers No.1, 2,  3,  5  and  8
\nhave  unauthorisedly  collected compounding fees from prohibition offenders at
\nan enhanced rate of  Rs.550\/-  from  each  prohibition  offenders  instead  of
\nRs.500\/-  which  was the compounding fee of originally collected by the Deputy
\nSuperintendent of Police (W.No.20) Krishnagiri sub-division and have also kept
\nunauthorised collection, an amount of  Rs.1290\/-  being  the  compounding  fee
\ncollection from prohibition offenders.\n<\/p>\n
                18.   Thereafter,  the  fourth  respondent,  who conducted the
\nenquiry, has submitted a proved minute.\n<\/p>\n
                19.  Further, it  is  revealed  that  out  of  28  prosecution
\nwitnesses  examined, ten official witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
\n2 4, 25 and 28, have given statement supporting the delinquency  committed  by
\nthe first  respondents.    However, 18 private individuals did not support the
\ncase of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
                20.  So, from the proceedings of the third respondent,  it  is
\nclear that the first respondents were dismissed from service only on the basis
\nof the statements of the ten official witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  We  have  also  perused the order of the Tribunal.  It is
\nseen that the enquiry proceedings with minutes, statements  of  witnesses  and
\nentire files  were  produced  before  the  Tribunal.   After considering those
\nmaterials, the Tribunal held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “Therefore, there is  absolutely  no  evidence  to  show  that
\nmamools  were  collected  by  Karimangalam police or that they shared it among
\nthemselves.  So learned counsel appearing for the applicants are justified  in
\nsaying  that  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence  to  show  that  any  of the
\nbootleggers or any sellers have been paying mamool to Karimangalam  Police  or
\nsame was  received  by  persons working in the Police Station.  So evidence of
\nthese large number of witnesses is of no use to the department because none of
\nthem have supported the case of the department  as  against  these  officials.
\nThe earlier statements cannot be acted upon in view of the fact that they have
\ndenied  giving such statements and they have stated that their signatures only
\nwere obtained.  Moreover, those statements were recorded behind  the  back  of
\nthe applicants.”\n<\/p>\n
                22.  With regard to Charge No.1, when the Tribunal has come to
\nthe  conclusion in para – 13 of its order that there is absolutely no evidence
\nto show that mamools were collected by Karimangalam Police or that they shared
\nit among themselves and in the absence of any material or document  contra  to
\nthe  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  Tribunal,  we  are of the view that the
\nconclusion arrived at by the Tribunal has to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  Further, as stated above, when in the proceedings  itself
\nit  is  mentioned  by  the  third  respondent  that  except  the  ten official
\nwitnesses, no independent witness did not support the case of the prosecution,
\nwe are of the view that, as rightly held by the Tribunal, there is  absolutely
\nno  evidence  to  show  that mamools were collected and shared among the first
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  With regard to Charge No.2, the findings of the Tribunal  are  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
                “So  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  excess money was
\ncollected than what was accounted for as  compounding  fees  from  prohibition
\noffenders  against whom cases have been registered and who have compounded the
\noffences after pleading guilty.  Moreover, P.W.28 examined during the  enquiry
\nis D .S.P.    Krishnagiri.  He has stated without any ambiguity that it was he
\nwho has imposed compounding fee after being satisfied that the offenders  have
\nadmitted their offences and he has collected compounding fee and only Rs.500\/-
\nwas  collected  from  each of the offenders for which due receipts were given.
\nReceipts were prepared in duplicates and original receipts have been given  to
\nthe  party and the carbon copy of the duplicate is maintained in the office of
\nthe DSP, Krishnagiri.  Therefore, the case of the department that Karimangalam
\nPolice collected Rs.550\/- from prohibition offenders and accounted only  Rs.50
\n0\/-  and  misappropriated  the  balance  of  Rs.50\/-  from  each person is not
\nsubstantiated  but  it  is  disproved  by  the  evidence  of  P.W.2  8  D.S.P.
\nKrishnagiri.”\n<\/p>\n
        25.  Further, in para -11 of its order the Tribunal held as follows:
\n” Any how it is proved that the amount of Rs.7805\/- and Rs.1290\/- found in the
\nPolice  Station  premises  were  not  accounted for in the register or account
\nbooks maintained by the Police Station in the normal course and  none  of  the
\npolice  officers  also  have  given any explanation for such huge amount being
\nfound inside the Police Station.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        26.  In para – 14, the learned Judge observed as follows:
\n        ” I have gone through the evidence of PWs 1  to  28  recorded  by  the
\nenquiry  officer carefully and as stated earlier evidence has proved only that
\nunaccounted money of Rs.7805\/- and Rs.1290\/- were recovered  from  the  police
\nstation by  the  Inspecting  officer.    Even  though  this  may  raise strong
\nsuspicion that it must be ill-gotten wealth.  Suspicion cannot be  substituted
\nfor  proof and it will be not fair to punish each and every applicants for the
\ndiscovery of unaccounted amount in the police station premises in the  absence
\nof any further evidence to connect the money with these applicants and also in
\nthe  absence  of any evidence to show that these people have taken shares from
\nsuch ill-gotted wealth.”\n<\/p>\n
                27.  On the basis of the findings, the learned Judge  came  to
\nthe following conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
                ” Therefore, I hold for the reasons stated above that there is
\nabsolutely no evidence to substantiate the charges against the applicants that
\nthey  have  collected  mamool  from  offenders  of the Prohibition Act and the
\namount collected has been shared by Inspectors of Police to Police  Constables
\nGrade-II.”\n<\/p>\n
                28.   From  the  above  it is clear that with regard to Charge
\nNo.2, since P.W.28 D.S.P., Krishnagiri, deposed  that  no  excess  amount  was
\ncollected  and  what  was  collected from the offenders has been accounted for
\nproperly, the learned Judge came to the conclusion,  in  the  absence  of  any
\nindependent evidence that the first respondents collected the amount in excess
\nfrom the offenders under Prohibition Act, no amount was collected in excess by
\nthe first respondents and thereby the second charge was disproved.\n<\/p>\n
                29.   Though  the  Tribunal found that the amount of Rs.7805\/-
\nand Rs.1 290\/- recovered from the premises of the Police Station is proved, no
\nevidence is available to connect the  first  respondents  with  the  recovered
\namount.\n<\/p>\n
                30.   Relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in
\nLalit Poli Vs.  Canara Bank and Others (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases  583,  the
\nlearned Additional Advocate General would contend that the Court cannot sit in
\nappeal on the findings of the disciplinary authority.\n<\/p>\n
                31.  However, we cannot accept such contention, in view of the
\nprinciples laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  Kuldeep  Singh  Vs.    The
\nCommissioner of Police and others (1998(9) Supreme 452), which was  relied  on
\nby the learned counsel appearing for the first respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                32.  The Supreme Court in the above decision held as follows:
\n                “It  is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or
\nthis Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded  at
\nthe  departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the Enquiry Officer
\nas a matter of course.  The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and
\nassume the role of the Appellate Authority.  But this does not mean that in no
\ncircumstance can the Court interfere.  The power of judicial review  available
\nto  the  High  Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its
\nstride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the  conclusions
\nreached  therein  if  there  was  no  evidence  to support the findings or the
\nfindings recorded were such as could not have  been  reached  by  an  ordinary
\nprudent  man  or  the  findings  were  perverse  or made at the dictate of the
\nsuperior authority.  The findings, recorded in  a  domestic  enquiry,  can  be
\ncharacterised  as perverse if it is shown that such a finding is not supported
\nby any evidence on record or is not based  on  the  evidence  adduced  by  the
\nparties  or  no  reasonable  person  could have come to t hose findings on the
\nbasis of that evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                Normally the High Court and this  Court  would  not  interfere
\nwith  the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding
\nof “guilt” is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding  and  would
\nbe amenable  to  judicial scrutiny.  A broad distinction has, therefore, to be
\nmaintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which  are  not.
\nIf  a  decision  is  arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly
\nureliable and no reasonable person would act  upon  it,  the  order  would  be
\nperverse.   But  if  there  is some evidence on record which is acceptable and
\nwhich could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be,  the  conclusions
\nwould  not  be  treated  as  perverse and the findings would not be interfered
\nwith.”\n<\/p>\n
                33.  In the case on hand, as we already discussed  above,  the
\nthird respondent imposed the extreme punishment, i.e.  dismissal from service,
\non  the  first  respondents  purely  based  on  the  evidence  of ten official
\nwitnesses, whereas 18 independent witnesses have not  supported  the  case  of
\nprosecution and  even out of ten, P.W.28 D.S.P.  Krishnagiri has categorically
\nstated that no excess  amount  was  received  from  the  offenders  under  the
\nProhibition  Act,  the  findings  of the disciplinary authority, in the eye of
\nlaw, are perverse.  When the alleged act of collecting bribery amount is  said
\nto  be  done  by  the  first  respondents,  who  are all police personnel, the
\nevidence of independent witness is indispensable to prove the same.    In  our
\nview, when the evidence of official witnesses has not been corroborated by the
\nindependent witness, the evidence of such official witnesses is unreliable and
\ntherefore, the imposition of extreme punishment on the basis of uncorroborated
\nand  unreliable  evidence is not sustainable under law and therefore, the same
\nis liable to be set aside.  It cannot be said  that  there  is  no  threat  or
\npressure  or  motive  to  the  official witnesses to give evidence against the
\nfirst respondents and in such circumstances, we cannot rely  the  evidence  of
\nsuch  official  witnesses  unless  the same is corroborated by the independent
\nwitnesses or proved that there is no pressure or threat or motive  for  giving
\nevidence by  the  official witnesses.  In the above circumstances, we can only
\nsay, following the principle  laid  down  in  the  above  decision,  which  is
\nsquarely  applicable  to the case on hand and relied on by the counsel for the
\nfirst respondents, that the findings the disciplinary authority  are  perverse
\nand on that basis, the imposition of extreme punishment is arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
                34.   Further,  as  laid down by the Apex Court in SHER BHADUR
\nVS.  UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ((2002) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 142), when in the
\ncase on hand, the evidence  of  official  witnesses  does  not  establish  the
\nconnection  or  link  or  nexus  between  the  recovered  amount and the first
\nrespondents, such evidence cannot be treated as evidence in the eye of law and
\ntherefore, we are of the view that the findings of the disciplinary  authority
\non  the  basis  of such evidence are perverse and thereby the dismissal of the
\nfirst respondents from service is unsustainable under law.\n<\/p>\n
                35.   Further,  the  contention  of  the  learned   Additional
\nAdvocate   General   is   that  the  first  respondents  have  filed  Original
\nApplications without exhausting the remedies available under the Act and  that
\nthe  Tribunal  ought  not  to  have  entertained the applications of the first
\nrespondents and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal on unentertainable
\napplications is to be set aside as the same  is  against  Section  20  of  the
\nAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
                36.  We have gone through the Section 20 of the Administrative
\nTribunals Act.\n<\/p>\n
                37.  First of all the above contention should have been raised
\nbefore the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
                38.   On a plain reading of Sub-Section 1 to Section 20 of the
\nAct, what we can infer is that the Tribunal  ordinarily  shall  not  admit  an
\napplication  unless  it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the
\nremedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal  of
\ngrievances.\n<\/p>\n
                39.   In  the  case  on hand, when the livelihood of the first
\nrespondents is deprived of and to get remedied the same, it is not  proper  to
\nexpect  even  for  a  prudent  person  that they should avail all the remedies
\navailable under the Act and only then they should knock the door of  Court  of
\nlaw.  The circumstances, under which the first respondents have approached the
\nTribunal, cannot be and should not be seemed as ordinary.\n<\/p>\n
                40.   In  this  regard,  the learned counsel appearing for the
\nfirst respondents relied on the decision of the Supreme  Court  in  HARBANSLAL
\nSAHNIA AND ANOTHER  VS.    INDIAN  OIL CORPN.  LTD AND OTEHRS((2003) 2 SUPREME
\nCOURT CASES 107), is squarely applicable.\n<\/p>\n
                41.  Further, the learned Additional  Advocate  General  would
\ncontend  that  the reinstatement of corrupt police personnel would tarnish the
\nimage of the Police Department and therefore, the order of the Tribunal has to
\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                42.  While we  have  perused  the  proceedings  of  the  third
\nrespondent,  we  have  seen  his  anguishness  and  concern  expressed  in his
\nproceedings.  The proceedings reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                ” The proved charge is very serious  in  nature  casting  dark
\nshadows in  the conduct of a police officer.  A corrupt police personnel harms
\nthe good name of the Police Department and the Govt.   and  is  also  a  blood
\nsucking  parasite  on  the  common  man and the society which is at his mercy.
\nInstead of being the custodian and protector of the dry  law  he  has  himself
\nbecome the  predator and allowed the boot-leggers to continue their trade.  If
\nthe fence designed to protect the crops starts eating the crops, there  is  no
\nneed for such a fence.  ”\n<\/p>\n
                43.   As  we  have  already  come  to  the conclusion that the
\nfindings of the disciplinary  authority  against  the  first  respondents  are
\nperverse  and  on  the  basis  of  such  finding,  the  dismissal of the first
\nrespondents from service is not sustainable under law, the contention  of  the
\nlearned   Additional   Advocate  General  cannot  be  accepted  as  the  first
\nrespondents are not corrupt in the eye of law and thereby their  reinstatement
\nwould not tarnish the image of Police Department and the Government.\n<\/p>\n
                44.   As  per  the famous proverb, “As is the king, so are the
\nsubjects”, unless the Head of Government and its machineries are committed  to
\nwipe out or eliminate corruption, which is a chronic tumor to the society as a
\nwhole,  and  chalk  out  stern and effective measures, whatever the preachings
\nwith regard to elimination of corruption would only become a farce.  One  Ramu
\nGoes then  one  Somu  comes  to  sustain corruption.  In other words, the said
\ntumor, corruption, never goes unless and until the above said commitment and a
\nmovement in that direction is emerged, which this Country needs.\n<\/p>\n
                45.  In the light of above discussions, we  are  of  the  view
\nthat the order of the Tribunal is not suffered from any kind of infirmity.\n<\/p>\n
                46.  In result, we dismiss all these Writ Petitions confirming
\nthe order of the  Tribunal.  No costs.  Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps.  are
\nalso dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
RNB  <\/p>\n
Index:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:Yes.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary to Government
\nHome (Police) Department, Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Director General of Police,
\nKamarajar Salai, Chennai-4.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police
\nSalem Range, Salem.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Superintendent of Police
\nDharmapuri District.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Registrar
\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
\nChennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08\/04\/2005 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE.P. SATHASIVAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTSICE. S.K. KRISHNAN W.P.No.10957 of 2004 and W.P.Nos. 10958 to 10961 and 20590 to 20603 of 2004 and W.P.M.Ps.Nos.12858, 12860, 12862, 12864, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-26T11:10:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-26T11:10:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3415,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005\",\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-26T11:10:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-26T11:10:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-26T11:10:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005"},"wordCount":3415,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005","name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-26T11:10:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-mahalingam-on-8-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Mahalingam on 8 April, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17599","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17599"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17599\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}