Writ petition regarding suspension status and departmental punishment. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held the appellate authority was liable for non-compliance with a prior court direction requiring merits-based reconsideration.
The appellate authority is directed to consider the matter afresh on merits within three months and pass appropriate orders.
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.
W.P.No.6574 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.6574 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.7144 of 2021
A.Rajendran
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in PR 188/PR II(1)/2009 dated 27.10.2010 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.2 & 3/PRIV(2)/2013 dated 07.01.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 18.07.2003 to 29.04.2009 as duty for all purposes and further direct the respondents to draw and disburse the wages within a reasonable time and grant such other further relief.
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.6574 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed for quashment of the impugned order
passed by the 1st respondent in PR 188/PR II(1)/2009 dated 27.10.2010 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.2 & 3/PRIV(2)/2013 dated 07.01.2021. Consequently to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 18.07.2003 to 29.04.2009 as duty for all purposes and further to direct the respondents to draw and disburse the wages.
3. The brief facts as per the affidavit are as follows:
3.1) The petitioner entered into the service as directly recruited Grade
II Police Constable in Chennai City Police, Armed Reserve on 01.08.1984. Thereafter, he was upgraded as Grade -I Police Constable in the year 1996
Page 2 of 8
W.P.No.6574 of 2021
and further upgraded as Head Constable in the year 1997. He was placed
under suspension on 28.10.2002 for his involvement in the criminal case
registered in Crime No.789 of 2002 for the offences under Section 120(b) and 420 IPC and in another Crime No.674 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC respectively. After trial, both the cases in C.C.No.20081 of 2004 and C.C.No.4975 of 2005 have ended in acquittal on 01.08.2005 and 5.02.2009 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service by the proceedings of the first respondent in CPO.No.903 of 2009 dated 08.04.2009. Meanwhile, departmental actions were initiated against him in Pr.No.204/PR 1(1)/2002 dated 12.11.2002 and PR.No.188/PR2(1)/2009 dated 25.05.2009 for certain charges. For the charges in Pr.No.204/PR 1(1)/2002, punishment was set aside and also ordered to treat the period of suspension from 29.10.2002 to 17.07.2003 as duty for all purposes. For the charges levelled against him in PR.No.188/PR2(1)/2009 dated 25.05.2009 as if he availed loan from Central Bank of India Mylapore Branch to the tune of Rs.36,000/- by producing bogus documents, he submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges and made representations on 12.6.2009 and 15.06.2009 to drop the departmental action, but he was directed to face the enquiry on the ground
Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.6574 of 2021
that departmental proceedings and the criminal case are not similar. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Police was appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct the oral enquiry against the petitioner.
3.2) In the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.17002 of 2009 to consider his representation dated 15.06.2009 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 21.09.2009 but the petitioner's request was rejected on 21.10.2009 stating that the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are not same. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.10.2010 held that, the charges in regard to forgery certificate for availing loan is proved and imposed a punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay for two stages for two years without cumulative effect. Against the impugned order dated 27.10.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the same was rejected by a common order dated 07.03.2013 and also issued an order treating the period of suspension from 18.07.2003 to 29.04.2009 as eligible leave including EOL to the extent necessary. In respect of another PR No.204 of 2002, the appeal PR No.2 of 2013 was allowed and the punishment was set aside.
Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.6574 of 2021
3.3) Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated
07.03.2013, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8782 of 2013 and this Court, by an order dated 03.02.2020, gave a direction to the appellate authority to reconsider his case on merits as per the rule position. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt petition for non-compliance of the order of this Court and subsequently, the second respondent has passed an order in Appeal No.2 & 3/PRIV(2)/2013 dated 07.01.2021, by rejecting the appeal petition by reiterating the averments made in the earlier order passed and refused to analyse the charges. Aggrieved by the orders of the first and second respondent, the petitioner has filed this petition.
Page 5 of 8
W.P.No.6574 of 2021
of suspension from 18.07.2003 to 29.06.2009 be treated as duty for all
purposes.
to be treated as eligible leave including EOL to the extent necessary. He further submitted that the petitioner failed to defend his case, hence, after careful consideration, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 27.10.2020. The appellate authority in his proceedings dated 07.01.2021 held that the delinquent has deliberately violated the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officer's Conduct Rules, 1964 and concluded that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority commensurate with the delinquency and hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice
Page 6 of 8
W.P.No.6574 of 2021
and the same has been imposed to secure the ends of justice. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
11.12.2024
mac Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Page 7 of 8
W.P.No.6574 of 2021
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
mac
To
W.P.No.6574 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.7144 of 2021
11.12.2024
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the period of suspension of a government employee who was subsequently acquitted in criminal proceedings should be treated as duty.
Whether a disciplinary authority violated principles of natural justice and duty of care by refusing to analyse charges when re-evaluating a case under a court direction.
A. Rajendran
The Deputy Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai City Police, Vepery, Chennai 7
The Joint Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Greater Chennai City Police, Vepery, Chennai 7
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
