Allowed

D.Elumalai, Head Constable v. The Deputy Inspector General

Madras HC22 Feb 2019WA/1405/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an intra-court appeal from a dismissed writ petition regarding suspension. It set aside the dismissal and directed the disciplinary authority to review the suspension and decide on merits without expressing an opinion on the case's substantive merits.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the writ petition is set aside; the writ petition is disposed of by directing the disciplinary authority to review the suspension and decide on merits.

D.Elumalai, Head Constable Vs The Deputy Inspector… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.02.2019

¶2

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶4

W.A. No. 1405 of 2017

¶5

D.Elumalai ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Vellore Range, Vellore District.

¶7

2.The Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai District.

¶8

3.The Inspector of Police

¶9

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department Tiruvannamalai District.

¶10

... Respondents/ Respondents

¶11

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order in W.P. No. 6029 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017 and thereby allow the Writ Appeal.

¶12

Prayer in W.P. No. 6029 of 2017:

¶13

This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records relevant to the order in Na.Ka.No. H.1./20253/16 dated 28.02.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal improper unreasonable arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and thereby direct the 1^st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into his service with effect from 22.09.2016 with all back wages.

¶14

The appellant was suspended from service initially by order dated 22.09.2016 on account of his involvement in a criminal case registered under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The representation submitted by the appellant for revoking the suspension was rejected by order dated 28.02.2017. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in W.P. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.6029 of 2017 before the writ court. Feeling aggrieved

¶15

by the order dated 31.07.2017, the unsuccessful writ petitioner has come up with this intra court appeal.

¶16

2.The learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on the judgment dated 02.02.2018 in W.A. No. 762 of 2017 submitted that under identical circumstances the case of another person involved in the very same case was given relief by this Court by issuing a direction to the authorities to review the order of suspension.

¶17

3.According to the learned counsel, the name of the appellant was not included in the case originally and it was only subsequently his name was incorporated, and as such he is in a better position.

¶18

4.We have also heard the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

5.There is no dispute that the appellant was placed under suspension by order dated 22.09.2016. The representation submitted by the appellant for revoking his suspension was rejected by order dated 28.02.2017. We are informed that the appellant is still under suspension. The respondent therefore must review the suspension for taking a decision one way or the other.

¶20

6.In the result, the order dated 31.07.2017 is set aside. The writ petition in W.P. No. 6029 of 2017 is disposed of with a direction to the disciplinary authority to consider the case of the appellant for revocation of suspension on merits and in accordance with law and more particularly, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaykumar Choudry vs. Union of India (2015(1) SCALE 432).

¶21

7.We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. It is for the disciplinary authority to consider the issue purely on merits.

¶22

8.The intra court appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

¶23

maya Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28