C. Panneer Selvam Vs State of Tamil Nadu

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Additional Chief Secretary Government, Home (Police-V) Department, 2^nd Floor, Main Building, Rajaji Road, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶13

Director General of Police, Head of Police Force, No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶14

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Behind Collector Office, Salem 636 007.

¶15

1/15

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶18

Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Ramapuram Post, Krishnagiri – 635 001.

¶19

Principal / Commandant, Police Recruit School, VII Battalion (temporary), Pochampalli 635 206.

¶20

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, Broadway, Chennai 600 003

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent in G.O.(D).No.150 dated 07.02.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to promote the petitioner to the rank of Superintendent with all service and monetary benefits with effect from the date on which the promotion was granted for the approved candidates for the panel year 2024-25.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vishnu Mohan for Mr.Rahul Balaji

¶24

For Respondents-1 to 5 : Mr.T.Chezhiyan Additional Government Pleader

¶25

2/15

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶30

“To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent in G.O.(D).No.150 dated 07.02.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the rank of Superintendent with all service and monetary benefits with effect from the date on which the promotion was granted for the approved candidates for the panel year 2024-25.”

¶31

The case of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶32

(a) The petitioner was recruited in the Tamil Nadu combined Subordinate Services Exam in the year 2009-11 as an Assistant and has been working as Assistant in the District Police Office, Krishnagiri. The petitioner would submit that he had worked as an Assistant in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater

¶33

3/15

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶36

Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai from 11.01.2013 to 16.07.2015 and from 17.07.2025, he has been working as Assistant at the office of the District Police Office, Krishnagiri.

¶37

b) He would submit that he was drafted on an O.D Basis to the

¶38

temporary Police Recruit School at VII Battalion, Pochampalli on 06.03.2022 as per the instructions received from the District Special Branch, Krishnagiri and he had reported for duty on 07.03.2022.

¶39

c) It is the case of the petitioner that while he was attending the allotted duty on 10.03.2022 at around 2.00 pm, he had received information that his younger brother, one K.Prakash had met with a road accident and was admitted in a serious condition in the Primary Health Centre, Kaveripattinam. Thereafter, he was referred to Neuro Foundation Hospital at Salem and from there to the Government Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri for better treatment all of which took place on the very same day, i.e 10.03.2022.

¶40

4/15

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶43

d) The news of the accident came as a shock to the petitioner and he had orally informed Mr.Ravi, Superintendent and Mr.Balakrishnan, Administrative Officer about the accident and rushed to the hospital. Since he was running from one hospital to the other and had finally rushed to the Government Medical College Hospital, Dharmapuri at around 10.00pm, he was not able to apply leave for the said day. However, by letter dated 10.03.2022, the petitioner had applied for casual leave on 11.03.2022. Thereafter, informing all the particulars, the petitioner had sent a letter dated 11.03.2022 to the 5^th respondent, who was his reporting Officer and sought leave of absence from 12.03.2022 to 18.03.2022 on account of the precarious condition in which his brother was admitted in the hospital.

¶44

e) The petitioner would submit that a mere perusal of the medical records would amplify the serious nature of the injuries

¶45

5/15

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶48

sustained by his brother. The CT scan of the brain revealed a multi focal haemorrhage injury and therefore emergency intubation and ventilation treatment was provided. Since the petitioner was unable to hand over the leave of absence letter on 11.03.2022 to his higher authorities in person, he had visited the office on 14.03.2022 and handed over the letter to the Reporting Officer, which was also acknowledged by him.

¶49

f) Unfortunately, the petitioner's brother succumbed to his injuries on 15.03.2022 and was laid to rest on 16.03.2022. The petitioner had to attend to the final rites and the rituals and also to console his brother's family which consisted of his brother's wife and two small children. Therefore, he met the 4^th respondent in person and requested a substitute to be appointed in his place for one week till such time as he could settle the family issues. He had sent a letter dated 18.03.2022 to the reporting officer seeking casual leave from 19.03.2022 to 25.03.2022. In the said letter, he had also informed

¶50

6/15

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶53

the higher authorities that he had to perform the last rites and ceremonies for his brother.

¶54

g)The petitioner would submit that he was orally assured that his request would be considered favourably. In addition to handing over the letter to the reporting officer he had also sent the same by speed post with acknowledgement due on the very same day, i.e. 18.03.2022 to the 5^th respondent and the same was delivered on 21.03.2022. The said letter was assigned reference number 3982 in the Tapal Distribution Register maintained in the Battalion office. Thereafter, he had joined service after the requisite leave period which was sought for till 25.03.2022.

¶55

h) While so, the petitioner had received a show cause notice dated 17.06.2022 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 from the 4^th respondent requiring him to show cause as to why his absence on 11.03.2022

¶56

7/15

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶59

and from 19.03.2022 to 25.03.2022 should not be treated as a violation of Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.

¶60

i) A mere perusal of the show cause notice would itself show that the request for leave from 12.03.2022 to 18.03.2022 was accepted and that the show cause notice was issued with respect to absence on 11.03.2022 and the period between 19.03.2022 to 25.03.2022. The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply dated 19.07.2022 giving all details regarding the submission of the leave letter. However, totally ignoring the explanation given, the 4^th respondent had passed an order dated 22.07.2022 imposing punishment of “postponement of next increment for three years without cumulative effect”. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had moved an appeal under Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 to the 3^rd respondent and the same was numbered as Appeal No.11 of 2022.

¶61

8/15

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶64

The 3

¶65

The 3^rd respondent summarily rejected the appeal stating that no new grounds have been made out and that the petitioner has not presented himself before the Commandant for sanction of leave. Against this order, the petitioner had preferred a revision to the 2^nd respondent under Rule 36 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. By order dated 14.03.2023, the 2^nd respondent has partly allowed the revision by reducing the punishment imposed on the petitioner from postponement of increment for 3 years without cumulative effect with 2 years. Still being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has preferred a further review before the 1^st respondent by way of a petition dated 30.06.2023. The 1^st respondent, by the impugned order dated 07.02.2025, has modified the order to postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. It is challenging this order that the petitioner is before this Court.

¶66

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the petitioner having submitted the requisite leave letters

¶67

9/15

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶70

along with proof of his brother's admission to the hospital and subsequent death, the impugned order has been passed. He would submit that in the meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent has published a revised seniority list in which the petitioner's name was shown as Serial No.55. The petitioner had also issued a representation to the 2^nd respondent to include his name in the then contemplated “C” list of assistants fit for promotion as Superintendent for the year 20242025. Therefore, the petitioner would submit that he is entitled to promotion which has not been granted. A reading of the impugned order passed by the authorities would clearly show that the leave letter sent by him was overlooked.

¶71

The respondents had not filed a counter, they however made

¶72

their submissions based on the records. They would submit that the petitioner has sought for leave only belatedly and it is on account that the action has been taken.

¶73

10/15

¶74

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

¶75

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶76

Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶77

From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the report was called for from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission since the petitioner had been appointed through the TNPSC. The impugned order would read as follows:-

¶78

“jdpah; jhd; Ja;j;j 10/03/2022 Kjy; 25/03/2022 Koa ehl;fSf;F chpa Mjhu Mtz';fisa[k; tpsf;f';fisa[k; rkh;g;gpj;j epiyapy; nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l ehl;fSf;F vt;tpj jftYkpd;wp gzpf;F tuhky; ,Ue;jjhf Fwpg;gpl;L Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpg;ghiz

¶79

tH';fpa[s;sJ Vw;Wf;bfhs;Sk;go ,y;iy/ jdpah; jdf;F tH';fg;gl;l mYtyfg; gzpfis rpunkw;bfhz;L nkw;bfhz;oUf;f ntz;Lk;/ Mdhy; me;j rkaj;jpy; jdJ rnfhjuUf;F Vw;gl;l jpOh; rhiy tpgj;jpd; fhuzkhfnt jdJ gzpapypUe;J jtwp

¶80

bray;gl;lJk; Vw;Wf;bfhs;sf;Toa fhuzkhfnt fUjj; njhd;WfpwJ/ ”

¶81

11/15

¶82

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

¶83

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶84

A leave letter dated 11.03.2022 for the period from 12.03.2022 to 18.03.2022 was submitted, followed by a subsequent letter dated 18.03.2022 seeking leave for the period from 15.03.2022 to 19.03.2022. From a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner has accounted for the period 10.03.2022 till 25.03.2022. The respondents have overlooked the reasons for the petitioner's absence. The petitioner's brother had met with a serious accident and the petitioner had to rush him to the hospital. On the date of the accident itself, the petitioner had moved his brother to three different hospitals and only thereafter, he could prepare a leave letter seeking leave of absence. Taking into account the reasons for the absence and the fact that despite the bereavement, the petitioner has submitted his leave application, the impugned order imposing postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect appears to be rather harsh. However, the record would show that the letter dated 11.03.2022 has been handed over to the respondent only

¶85

12/15

¶86

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

¶87

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶88

on 14.03.2022. There has been a delay on the part of the petitioner. However, this delay does not entail the punishment imposed by the authorities and it would suffice if a punishment of censure is imposed on the petitioner.

¶89

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the punishment

¶90

of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner is hereby modified to a penalty of censure. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

13.08.2025

srn

To

The Additional Chief Secretary Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home (Police-V) Department, 2^nd Floor, Main Building, Rajaji Road, Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶95

13/15

¶96

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

¶97

W.P.No.15079 of 2025

¶98