Dismissed

The Director General Of Police v. a Paulraj Pandian

Madras HC21 Oct 2024WA(MD)/2059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where a police officer was compulsorily retired and challenged the order, the High Court upheld the single judge's order. The suspension period was treated as leave, but the period of employment gap post-retirement was treated as on duty. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal No.2059 of 2024 dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; No costs.

The Director General Of Police Vs a Paulraj… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.2059 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 21.10.2024

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶5

W.A(MD)No.2059 of 2024 and

¶6

CMP(MD)No.14707 of 2024

¶7

The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶8

The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner of Police (L & O), Madurai City, Madurai.

... Appellants

vs.

A.Paulraj Pandian

... Respondent

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.16257 of 2020 dated 08.03.2023.

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.SRA.Ramchandran Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatesan

¶16

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

¶17

Page No.1 of 4

¶18

W.A(MD)No.2059 of 2024

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

( Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

¶21

Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Writ Court modifying treatment of the period of suspension and the period during which the respondent was out of employment.

¶22

The respondent who was working in the Police Department, was charged with various delinquencies. An enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 12.02.2019. It is also stated that the respondent was under suspension between 11.07.2014 and 02.02.2015. The punishment of compulsory retirement was challenged and the appellate authority modified the punishment as one of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Once this was done, the respondent sought for regularisation of the suspension period and the period during which he was out of employment. The learned Single Judge has directed that his suspension period should be treated as period on leave because he has not been fully exonerated and therefore, the invocation of Rule 54-B-9 of the Fundamental Rules is incorrect. However, for the period during which the petitioner was out of employment that is, the period between 12.02.2019 and 06.08.2019, the learned Single Judge has directed that the said period to be treated as on duty for all purposes since the petitioner was out of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 4

¶23

W.A(MD)No.2059 of 2024 service because of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and not because of the suspension. Therefore, we are unable to fault the learned Single Judge for having made a distinction between the two periods and for having granted the benefit of the period during which he was out of employment because of the punishment imposed. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

(R.S.M, J.) (L.V.G, J.) 21.10.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala

¶25

¶26

The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶27

The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (L & O), Madurai City, Madurai.

¶28

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

¶29

Page No.3 of 4

¶30

W.A(MD)No.2059 of 2024 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶31

bala

¶32

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)No.2059 of 2024 DATED : 21.10.2024

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 4

The Director General Of Police v. a Paulraj Pandian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director General Of Police v. a Paulraj Pandian

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

The Chief Educational Officer Vs M Ignaci Jenetta

The Management of Tamilnadu Vs P.Balasubramanian

A.Chinnaiah Vs v.N.Vijayarahavan

The District collector Vs S Nageswaran

Jai Kavitha Vs The Managing Director and CEO

R.Manibharathi Vs State of Tamil Nadu, represented by