Petitioner sought writ to quash rejection of requests to notional reinstatement after dismissal for dishonesty. Court held Tribunal order final and dismissed petition as matter was stale.
No relief granted; Writ Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20/09/2011
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.10673 of 2011
I.Raju
... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records, relating to the order of the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No. 48 dated 03.02.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to notionally reinstate the petitioner and settle the entire benefits including retirement and pension benefits into service to the petitioner.
For petitioner : Mr. T.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
Pleadings disclose that disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner in P.R.No. 4 of 1983 under rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 to wit that "highly in disciplinary and reprehensible conduct of high handed action in illegally taking away Rs.220/from Lakshmanan, Rs.170 from Mohaideen and Rs.140/- from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Paramasivam, the accused persons involved in Kadamalaigundu Police Station in Crime No 86 of 1982 under Sections 120(B), 379, 107 read with 34 IPC and 353, 149 IPC on 14.10.1982.
2
2. After conducting an enquiry, the charges were held proved and by an order, dated 27.08.1984, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. His Appeal, dated 06.09.1984 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai District, has been dismissed, on 30.11.1984. The review petition, dated 30.01.1985 to the Inspector General of Police ( L & O), Madurai, was also dismissed, on 17.07.1985. The further representation, dated 21.12.1985 to the Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, has also been rejected, by his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No. 2674 / home (Pol. VI) Department, dated 13.09.1986. Ultimately, the petitioner's challenge to the abovesaid orders in O.A.No. 1439 of 1993, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, has also been dismissed on 26.04.1996. After all these orders, and after a lapse of nearly 13 years from the date of passing of the order by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, dated 26.04.1996, and after nearly 25 years from the date of dismissal from service, the petitioner has made a representation, dated 21.10.2009 to the Secretary to Government, to consider his grievance sympathetically, on the basis of the recommendations made by the Inspector of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police for reinstatement. Alleging that the said representation has not been considered in time, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No. 12238 of 2009 and by an order, dated 26.11.2009, this Court has directed the first respondent to consider the abovesaid representation. In response to the same, the first respondent has passed the impugned order in G.O.(2D). No. 48, dated 03.02.2010.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, contenting inter alia that the first respondent has failed to consider the recommendations of the abovesaid officials. In this Writ Petition, he has also made an attempt to assail the correctness of the order of dismissal, which has been confirmed by Tribunal in the year 1996. He has further submitted that the respondent has failed to follow the principles of natural justice, in not giving any opportunity before passing the impugned order.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. Facts disclose that the petitioner has been dismissed on a serious charge state supra. His appeal, review and further remedy availed by them, up to the level of Government, have been rejected in the year 1986 itself. The Government while considering his Petition, dated 21.12.1985, have passed an order in G.O.Ms.No. 2674 / home (Pol.VI) Department, dated 13.09.1986.
6. It is evident from the supporting affidavit that the original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, has been filed in the year 1993, after 7 years from the date of the Government Order, and though the same had been entertained, came to be dismissed on 26.04.1996. The said order has reached finality, as the petitioner has not chosen to prefer any Writ Petition. Now he has made representation, dated 21.10.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ie., after 13 years, and alleging non consideration of his representation, has approached this Court in W.P.(MD).No. 12238 of 2009, in which, a direction has been issued on 26.11.2009, to
3
consider his representation. When the enquiry officer, has already held the abovesaid charge as proved and when the disciplinary, appellate, Government and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, have considered the challenge, have rejected the case of the petitioner, it is not known as to how, an Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, can offer, their own remarks or opinion regarding the findings, recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also accepted by the disciplinary and other higher statutory authorities. Under what authority the abovesaid authorities can offer their remarks, to sit in over the orders of the Tribunal after so many years, after the dismissal of the Original Application, which has reached its finality, is really a moot question, which the Government to consider, and take appropriate action, if required. Nevertheless, when the Government have considered and rejected the case of the petitioner, way back in the year 1986 by issuing G.O.Ms.No. 2674/home (Pol. VI) Department, dated 13.09.1986, it is not open to the petitioner to resurrect the dead matter, by giving a representation after 13 years from the date of the dismissal of O.A.No. 1439 of 1993, dated 26.04.1996 and nearly 25 years of dismissal, and still contend the orders of dismissal and further orders are illegal and violative of the procedure.
7. By making repeated representations to resurrect dead and stale matters, orders passed by the competent authorities and the Tribunal cannot be reviewed, again and again. The dismissal of the writ petitioner on the proven charges, has been confirmed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and the said order has reached finality. While considering a representation, not statutorily mandated as per any rule, the Government or any other competent authority under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, need not write a detailed order, as that of a Judgment reviewing the decision on merits, as it would be amounting to reviewing the decision made by the Tribunal.
8. There are no merits in this Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
Chennai - 9
Santhome
Chennai - 4
4
W.P.(MD).No.10673 of 2011
20.09.2011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a dismissal confirmed by the Tribunal after 25 years can be reconsidered on a stale representation.
Whether lower police officials can override Tribunal findings recorded long ago.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
I. Raju
The State of Tamil Nadu
Director General of Police
Deputy Inspector General of Police
Superintendent of Police
S. Manikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
