Subbaiyan .M Vs The Director General of Police

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.P/TP.7/17 dated 31.01.2018 and quash the same.

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.23172 of 2023

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 31.01.2018, passed by the second respondent, dismissing the petitioner from service.

¶20

2. The petitioner was the Inspector of Police and on account of the suicide death of one R.Vasuki, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which resulted in the second respondent passing the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service.

¶21

3. Admittedly, the petitioner did not choose to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority and instead, has filed this writ petition before this Court, without exercising the appeal remedy.

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.23172 of 2023

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is also no lapses on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court and only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, this writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. He would also submit that immediately, after the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, which is also the same cause of action for initiating disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and therefore, there is no delay. He would now submit that the petitioner is willing to exercise the appeal remedy before the Appellate Authority challenging the impugned order dismissing him from service.

¶26

5. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has also not raised any serious objection, if such a direction is issued by this Court to enable the petitioner to exercise the appeal remedy.

¶27

6. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner

¶28

is allowed to exercise the appeal remedy aggrieved by the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service.

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.23172 of 2023

¶32

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file an appeal as against the impugned order dated 31.01.2018, passed by the second respondent, before the first respondent, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing of such appeal, the first respondent shall entertain the same, if the same is filed within the stipulated time as directed by this Court and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law on the said appeal by adhering to the principles of natural justice, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's case and it is for the first respondent to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

31.10.2025

¶34

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

¶35

krk

¶36

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.23172 of 2023