Allowed

K.Subramanian, v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Madras HC4 Sept 2023WP(MD)/2999/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by a police constable against the rejection of his mercy petitions regarding a disciplinary punishment, the Madras High Court held that an administrative order passed without assigning reasons is unsustainable. The court set aside the rejection order and remitted the matter to the appropriate authority for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned G.O. dated 31.10.2018 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration with orders to be passed within six weeks.

K.Subramanian, Vs the Additional Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2999 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.2999 of 2019

K.Subramanian

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Police VI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.1255 Home (Police VI) Department dated 31.10.2018, on the file of the 1^st respondent confirming the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in R.C.No.108750/AP 2(1)/2014 dated 19.11.2016 modifying the order passed by the 3^rd respondent in 'F' order dated 08.11.2012 and to quash the same.

¶14

_________Page 1 of 8

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.2999 of 2019

¶17

For Petitioner : Ms.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police (No.1292) Constable and upgraded as Grade-I Police Constable. While he was working as Grade-I Police Constable at V.K.Puram Police Station, Tirunelveli District, he was suspended by the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings dated 21.01.2012 stating that a grave charge is pending and enquiry against him in connection with Crime Nos.27 to 36 of 2012, which were registered under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act on the file of the Courtallam Police Station.

¶21

_________Page 2 of 8

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.2999 of 2019

¶24

Learned counsel would submit that thereafter, charge memo has been issued by the 3^rd respondent in his proceedings dated 08.02.2012 framing two charges. After conducting enquiry, the 3^rd respondent issued proceedings on 08.11.2012 and awarded punishment of removal from service from the date of order. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent modified the punishment of removal from service into that of punishment of postponement of increments for three years with cumulative effect by taking him back for duty, by order dated 10.02.2013.

¶25

Learned counsel further submits that subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in S.T.C.No.38/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai by judgment dated 17.01.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a mercy petition to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, dated 14.05.2016 with a request to quash the modified order of punishment dated 10.02.2013, in the light of the judgment dated 17.01.2014 in S.T.C.No.38/2012. The plea of the petitioner was rejected

¶26

_________Page 3 of 8

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.2999 of 2019

¶29

by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, by his proceedings in R.C.No.108750/AP 2(1)/2014, dated 19.11.2016 stating that the acquittal is only on technical grounds and cannot be a reason to quash the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has submitted another mercy petition before the 1^st respondent. The same was also rejected by the 1^st respondent vide G.O.(D) No.1255, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 31.10.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶30

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶31

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, he was acquitted on benefit of doubt and therefore, it would not amount to honourable acquittal. The learned Special Government Pleader further contends that the 1^st respondent and the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, after careful consideration of the mercy petitions submitted by the petitioner, rejected the same, which are in accordance with law and sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶32

_________Page 4 of 8

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.2999 of 2019

¶35

Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, particularly on careful examination of the order impugned in this writ petition, it appears that the 1^st respondent without assigning any reasons, rejected the petition submitted by the petitioner.

¶36

In the impugned Government Order in G.O.(D) No.1255, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 31.10.2018, except noting down the facts of the issue, there is no mention in the said order with regard to the grounds raised by the petitioner at the time of submitting the mercy petitions were considered.

¶37

It is settled law that any order passed without assigning reasons is unsustainable under law.

¶38

For the above mentioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, without going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to

¶39

_________Page 5 of 8

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.2999 of 2019

¶42

remit the matter back to the 1^st respondent for fresh consideration to meet

¶43

the ends of justice.

¶44

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following

¶45

directions:

¶46

i. The order impugned in this writ petition in G.O.(D) No.1255, Home (Police VI) Department, dated 31.10.2018 is hereby set aside; and

¶47

ii. The matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent for fresh consideration and to pass orders afresh in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

04.09.2023

¶50

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

¶51

abr

¶52

_________Page 6 of 8

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.(MD) No.2999 of 2019

¶55

¶56

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Police VI) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶57

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli District.

¶58

3.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.

¶59

Page 7 of 8

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P.(MD) No.2999 of 2019

¶62

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶63

abr

¶64

W.P.(MD) No.2999 of 2019

¶65

Dated : 04.09.2023

¶66

_________Page 8 of 8

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Subramanian, v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subramanian, v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jothimani Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Kanagaraj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Madurai District Village Vs State of Tamilnadu

The Management ,Md SPL.28 Vs the Joint Registrar of

Umagandhi, Vs the Commissioner of Municipal

Dr.N.Mathivanan Vs the Joint Director of Health