WP No. 27608 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 27608 of 2017 WMP Nos.29531 & 29532 of 2017 1. P.V.Vijikumar, S/o.Vellappan, Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore. 3.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu,Chennai.4. (R3-impleded as per the order dt.06.07.18 by SPIJ IN WMP.18576/18 IN WP.27608/2017) Respondent(s) 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27608 of 2017 PRAYER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in C.No.H2(1)/ PR.140/2016 dated 05.01.2017 and the subsequent order issued by the 1st respondent in the Appeal in No.C.B2/ AP.12/2017 dated 29.06.2017 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of police for the year 2016-2017 and consequently promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, with all consequential and other attendant benefits. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.V.Arun for M/s.G.Saravanan For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Ravi, Spl.Govt Pleader ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in C.No.H2(1)/ PR.140/2016 dated 05.01.2017 and the subsequent order issued by the 1st respondent in the Appeal in No.C.B2/ AP.12/2017 dated 29.06.2017 and to quash the same and consequently direct 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27608 of 2017 the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of police for the year 2016-2017 and consequently promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, with all consequential and other attendant benefits. 2.The petitioner, who was then working as the Inspector of Police was issued with show cause notice dated 01.10.2016 for the reason of failure to properly implement/enforce the prohibition Act by preventing the sale of Ethanol laced Hooch by one accused Ranjith. On the said day, the Personnel of Prohibition Enforcement Wing(PEW) raided the premises of the said Ranjith, under the limits of Ranipet Taluk Police Station and found adulterated rectified spirit, which was being sold for human consumption. 3.The allegation against the petitioner is that being the Inspector of the area, he had not acted properly to prevent such sale of adulterated liquor. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27608 of 2017 4.On the basis of the show cause notice dated 01.10.2016 issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, a written explanation was given by the petitioner on 28.10.2016. In the written explanation, the petitioner stated that he was in-charge of two police stations which are the Wallazabad Police Station and Ranipet Police Station. He has discharged his duties diligently and issued instructions accordingly to his sub-ordinates for conducting raids etc to implement the prohibition. The Superintendent of Police has also issued notice to the Sub Inspector, who is the subordinate of the petitioner in the Police Station. The Sub Inspector of Police has also given his explanation. 5.Having received the explanation of the petitioner and also the Sub Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of Police warned the Sub Inspector of Police and let him off. However, the petitioner was punished by way of punishment of ''censure'' 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27608 of 2017 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that similarly placed Sub Inspector of Police was let off with a warning, however, no reasons were given as to why the punishment of ''censure'' was imposed on the petitioner. The learned counsel prayed for allowing the Writ Petition on the ground of parity. 7.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was in-charge of the entire area and the punishment of ''censure'' was given. The person in-charge ought to have been more vigilant and prevented the sale of such adulterated liquor during the prohibition. 8.It is not the case of the respondent that there was any kind of information about the sale of adulterated liquor by the accused on 22.09.2016 and the petitioner failed to act on such information. During the said period, when the prohibition was imposed, it is common that anti-social elements would involve in sale of adulterated liquor. Only for the reason of finding adulterated 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27608 of 2017 liquor in the jurisdiction of the police station where the petitioner was the Inspector, that itself is not sufficient to impose the punishment of ''censure'', since nothing was brought on record that any such activity was to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner was in-charge of two police stations. More over, the Sub-Inspector of Police was let off with a warning. No enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority and the only reason for awarding punishment is the detection of sale of adulterated liquor by the PEW, within the jurisdiction of the police station. 9.This Court deems it appropriate to set aside the punishment of ''censure'', which was imposed on the petitioner for the above discussed reason and on the ground of parity. Even according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner did not have any blemish during his tenure which he was in-charge of two police stations. The same is mentioned in the impugned proceedings. 10.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27608 of 2017 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in C.No.H2(1)/ PR.140/2016 dated 05.01.2017 is hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 08-09-2025 dn Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27608 of 2017 To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore 2.The Superintendent of Police Vellore District, Vellore 3.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu,Chennai.4 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27608 of 2017 K.SURENDER, J. dn WP No. 27608 of 2017 08-09-2025 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis