Partly allowed

The Secretary v. S.Balaraman

Madras HC24 Jan 2018WA/1/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's order reinstating a retired police constable dismissed for misconduct. The High Court noted that reinstatement was moot due to superannuation and modified the dismissal into compulsory retirement for calculation of benefits. Allowed appeal with modifications.

What did the court decide?

Order of dismissal from service is set aside and modified into compulsory retirement without back wages for calculation of other retirement benefits.

The Secretary Vs S.Balaraman — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.01.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

W.A.No.1 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

1.The Secretary Home Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai 9. 2.Inspector General of Police Law & Order Chennai 600 004.

¶7

3.Deputy Inspector General of Police Villupuram Range. 4.Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District. ...Appellants/Respondent Vs S.Balaraman ...Respondent/Petitioner

¶8

Prayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12433 of 2007.

¶9

WP.NO.12433/2007:

¶10

Writ Petition Under Article 226 of Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.NO.483 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the second respondent herein in Rc.No.207591/AP-I(2)/ 99 dated 01/10/1999 confirming the order of the 4th respondent in D No.857/99 C.No.H1/PR 30/97 dated 29/06/99 of the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service as Police Constable in Pudupet Police Station

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

For Appellants : Mr.V.Anandhamurthy Additional Government Pleader

¶13

For Respondent : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

¶16

This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 28 August, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12433 of 2007.

¶17

2 The facts germane and necessary which led to the filing of this intra Court appeal are as under:

¶18

2.1 The respondent was working as Grade-I Police Constable in Cuddalore New Town Police Station from 03 July, 1995. He was issued a charge memo dated 05 February, 1997, containing certain set of charges against him. The respondent denied the charges levelled against him and gave a reply to the said charge memo. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the respondent also participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 10 May, 1999 to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved. The Disciplinary Authority by proceedings dated 29 June, 1999 imposed the punishment of dismissal of the respondent from service. Against the said order, the respondent sent a representation to the Inspector General of Police (L&O), Mylapore. By order dated 01 October, 1999, the Inspector General of Police, confirmed the order of dismissal from service. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed the writ petition in W.P.No.12433 of 2007.

¶19

2.2 The learned Single Judge, holding that sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the respondent, quashed the order dated 01 October, 1999 passed by the second appellant and gave a direction to the appellants to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and with all benefits, except back wages for the period of non-employment. The said order is under challenge before us.

¶20

3 We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants. We have also heard the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.

¶21

4 The fact that the respondent was working as Grade I Police Constable, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the Enquiry officer sent a report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the charges proved, are not

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

controverted. The Disciplinary Authority, by simply accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent. The learned Single Judge has observed that the Disciplinary Authority, while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, has not given any reason, much less any valid reason, for accepting the findings given by the Enquiry Officer.

¶24

5 On a perusal of the order impugned in this intra Court appeal, it is manifest that the learned Single Judge has delved very deep into the issue by re-appreciating the entire evidence as an appellate authority. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the Disciplinary Authority has not given any reason for accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the option left open was only to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration afresh and not to straightaway direct reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and other applicable benefits.

¶25

6 Be that as it may, the fact remains that though the respondent was initially dismissed from service, subsequently, he had retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Since the respondent has already attained the age of superannuation, the question of his reinstatement in service does not arise. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge warrants interference.

¶26

7 Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent has attained the age of superannuation, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified by holding that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is set aside and the same is modified into one of compulsory retirement without back wages for the limited purpose of calculation of other retirement benefits.

¶27

In the upshot, we allow this intra court appeal to the extent indicated above. No costs.

¶28

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶29

gms

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

1.The Secretary Home Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai 9. 2.Inspector General of Police Law & Order Chennai 600 004. 3.Deputy Inspector General of Police Villupuram Range.

¶32

4.Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District. + 1 cc to Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi Advocate,SR.6020 + 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.5829 W.A.No.1 of 2013 nr 26/03/2018

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Secretary v. S.Balaraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary v. S.Balaraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indirani, Aged 66 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

State of Tamilnadu Vs P.Sundarasamy

Mr.Rama Rao Ayyagari Vs Govt of Tamilnadu

M.Jayapalan, Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

The Teachers Recruitment Board Vs G.Sasikala

R.Ramajalam Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by