Dismissed¶29

The Deputy Inspector General v. R. Soundarapandian

Madras HC15 Dec 2025REV.APLC(MD)/139/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court dismisses review by police officials of order dated 11.11.2024 in W.A.(MD).No.2109 of 2024; holds pending Criminal Appeal against acquittal is no bar to regularization of suspension period; conviction in appeal would require fresh departmental action for punishment; no departmental proceedings pending; no error apparent on face of record; Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 CPC; petitioners include Deputy Inspector of General/DIG/SPs of Ramanathapuram, Tirunelveli, Sivangangai, Kannyakumari; respondent R.Soundarapandian; decided 15.12.2025 by M.S. Ramesh J. with A.D. Maria Clete J.

What did the court decide?

When a Criminal Appeal is pending, there cannot be any illegal impediment or embargo for the Department to regularize the suspension period of an employee. ¶24

The Deputy Inspector General Vs R. Soundarapandian — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.139 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.139 of 2025

¶7

1.The Deputy Inspector of General, Ramanathapuram District

¶8

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli District

¶9

3.The Superintendent of Police, Sivangangai District

¶10

4.The Superintendent of Police, kannyakumari District

¶11

5.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District. ...Petitioners

R.Soundarapandian

...Respondent

Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of CPC. to review the order dated 11.11.2024 passed in W.A(MD).No.2109 of 2024.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan Government Advocate

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.139 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by the M.S.Ramesh J. )

¶22

This Review Application has been filed to review the order dated 11.11.2024 passed in W.A.(MD).No.2109 of 2024.

¶23

The main ground raised in this Review Application is that though the charge memo against the review petitioners have been quashed, the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal is pending. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners seek interference to the order.

¶24

The ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not only unjustifiable but also illegal. When a Criminal Appeal is pending, there cannot be any illegal impediment or embargo for the Department to regularize the suspension period of an employee. Even if there is going to be any conviction in the Criminal Appeal, fresh departmental action requires to be initiated for the purpose of imposing any punishment.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.139 of 2025 4. This is a case where the Review Petitioners have sought only for

¶28

regularization of the period of suspension. Since there are no departmental proceedings pending as on date, the grounds raised in the Review Application does not require consideration.

¶29

The Review Petitioners have not pleaded any other grounds pointing out any error apparent on the face of the order passed by us. Hence, the Review Application does not hold merits and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No Costs.

¶30

Anu

¶31

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

Rev.Aplc(MD).No.139 of 2025

¶35

M.S.RAMESH, J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE,J.