Madras High Court
S.Ravichandran vs ) The Principal Secretary To ... on 7 December, 2021
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
S.Ravichandran,
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
No.77/78, Periyar Nagar,
Kattur, Trichy 620 019 ... Petitioner
vs.
1) The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police-IV) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2) The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600004
3) The Additional Director General of Police,
(Law and Order), Tamil Nadu,
Chennai 600 004
4) The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Crime , SIT, Chennai 600 016. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the order of the third respondent herein passed in
Rc.No.13862/APIV(2)/2009 dated 06.01.2010 imposing the punishment of
______________
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
postponement of next increment for one year without cumulative effect and
confirmed by the second respondent herein in Rc.No.24181/APIV(2)/2010
dated 29.01.2011 and the consequential order passed by the fourth
respondent herein in his C.No.C1/NIB/838/2011 dated 19.07.2011 and the
order passed by the first respondent herein in G.O.(2D) No.30, Home
(Police-IV) Department dated 04.02.2014 and quash the same and
consequently, direct the respondents herein to treat the period of suspension
from 23.08.2005 to 11.12.2008 as duty for all purposes with all consequential
service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ravi Shanmugam
For Respondents : Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh,
Special Government Pleader.
******
ORDER
The petitioner herein, while serving as an Inspector of Police in NIB
CID, Dindigul Unit was implicated in a criminal case, consequent to which
two charges were framed against him. Insofar as the first charge is concerned,
it relates to registration of the criminal case. The Enquiry Officer as well as
the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority had found that this charge as
'not proven'.
2. The second charge pertains to petitioner's unauthorised absence from
the Head Quarters between the morning of 19.08.2005 till 21.08.2005.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
3. Pending the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was placed
under suspension through an order dated 23.08.2005 on the ground that the
aforesaid criminal case was pending investigation. In consequence to the
enquiry, the petitioner was ultimately imposed with the punishment of
stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. In
the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the punishment with a
consequential prayer to treat his period of suspension from 23.08.2005 to
11.12.2008 as duty for all purposes.
4. Insofar as the punishment is concerned, the learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the
Disciplinary Authority is based on 'no evidence' and therefore, the
consequential punishment cannot be sustained.
5. Per contra, Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, learned Special Government
Pleader, by placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents,
would submit that the Enquiry Officer had placed reliance on the oral
evidence adduced during the course of enquiry and as such, it cannot be said
that the findings was not on the basis of any evidence. A perusal of the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
enquiry officer's report, dated 19.08.2008 reveals that reliance was placed on
the evidences of PW's 1, 2, 3, & 5 to 7 for the purpose of holding the second
charge as proved. This apart, the Enquiry Officer had also held that the
delinquent had not substantiated during the course of enquiry with regard to
the date and time of serving the detention intimation letter to the wife of the
detenu, which document could have been filed by the petitioner. It is on the
basis of this inference and on the evidences of the witnesses, the second
charge was held as 'proved'.
6. To state specifically, the Enquiry Officer had relied on P.W's 5, 6
and 7 for the purpose of holding that the petitioner did not confirm his
location after 19.08.2005 and before 21.08.2005 and the evidences of P.W.1
to P.W.3 reveals that there was every possibility to the delinquent to inform
his location to the Unit or to his Superior, which he has failed to do so. In
view of these findings, this cannot be a case based on " no evidence" .
7. With regard to the consequential prayer sought for by the petitioner
in the present writ petition is concerned, he was placed under suspension
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
from 23.08.2005 to 11.12.2008 which period, he seeks for being treated as
'duty for all purposes'. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Fundamental Rules in FR 54(9) stipulates that whenever the
Government servant is placed under suspension in connection with a criminal
case registered against him and when such criminal case results in an
acquittal of any nature, the period of suspension is to be treated as duty for all
purposes and consequently, the delinquent would be entitled for all monetary
benefits for that period. The Fundamental Rules as prescribed under FR 54(9)
reads as follows:-
" 54 ...
(9) Where a Government servant is.-
(a) Placed under suspension in view of the fact that a
complaint against him of any criminal offence is under
investigation or trial; or
(b) dismissed or removed from service or
compulsorily retired on the ground of conduct which has
led to his conviction on a criminal charge and the
Government servant is subsequently reinstated in service
on his acquittal by the Court either on merits or on the
ground that the charge has not been proved against him
or by giving benefit of doubt or on any other technical
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
ground, * or on the ground that he has been pardoned
by the Court as he turned approver based on his judicial
confession, he must be regarded as having seen
prevented from discharging his duties and the period of
his absence including the period of suspension shall be
treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid full
pay and allowances which he would have been entitled
to, had he not been under suspension, or dismissed or
removed or compulsorily retired from service".
8. It is not in dispute that the criminal case registered against the
petitioner herein, which was taken on file in S.C.No.58 of 2007 before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul had resulted in an acquittal through the
judgment dated 02.01.2008 and has also become final. By applying the
aforesaid Fundamental Rule, it has to be necessarily held that the aforesaid
suspension period is to be treated 'as duty for all purposes'.
9. While this being the legal position, the fourth respondent herein in
his order dated 19.07.2011, had settled the suspension period in the following
manner:-
"23.08.05 to 19.01.06 - 150 Days E.L.
20.01.06 to 19.04.06 - 180 Days UEL on (P.A.)
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
converted into 90 days.
20.04.06 to 11.12.08 - Leave on Loss of Pay - 02.07.22
days."
10. Apparently, the aforesaid settlement is opposed to the Fundamental
Rule 54(9) and consequently, the order of the fourth respondent, dated
19.07.2011 in this regard, cannot be sustained. The learned Special
Government Pleader would submit that since the petitioner was awarded with
the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without
cumulative effect, the fourth respondent was justified in treating the period of
suspension as Loss of Pay and Eligible Leave. Such a statement is based on
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.
11. In view of the observations made by this Court in the earlier
paragraphs, the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader may
not be correct since it is opposed to Fundamental Rule 54(9). In this
background, though no interference is required to prove the charges and
consequential punishment, the decision of the fourth respondent to settle the
period of petitioner's suspension as Loss of Pay and Eligible Leave, cannot be
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
sustained.
12. In the result, the impugned orders dated 06.01.2010, 29.01.2011
and 04.02.2014 insofar as the imposed punishment for the proven charges
and confirmed in appeal, is sustained. However, the order dated 19.07.2011
passed by the fourth respondent herein, treating the period of suspension
between 23.08.2005 to 11.12.2008 as Loss of Pay and Eligible Leave is
setaside with a consequential direction to treat the said period of suspension
'as duty for all purposes' including disbursement of monetary benefits. The
Writ Petition stands ordered accordingly. However, there shall be no order as
to costs.
07.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
sts/ ata
To:
1) The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police-IV) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
2) The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600004
3) The Additional Director General of Police,
(Law and Order), Tamil Nadu,
Chennai 600 004
4) The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Crime , SIT, Chennai 600 016.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
M.S.RAMESH, J.,
ata
Order made in
W.P.No.1456 of 2015
Dated:
07.12.2021
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
