Madras High Court
Selvin Paul vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2021
W.P.No.16230 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.16230 of 2018
Selvin Paul ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police-V) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Veppery, Chennai – 600 007.
4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(Reserve Armed)
Chennai – 08. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of
the 4th respondent made in PR No.22/3(d)/2004 dated 29.7.2005, 3rd
respondent's order made in C.No.280/135346/PR.III(2)/2012 dated
25.5.2013 and that of the 2nd respondent order made in
Rc.No.116196/AP.3(2)/2013 dated 1.3.2016 and as confirmed by the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 7
W.P.No.16230 of 2018
respondent in G.O.(D) No.1011, Home (Police -V) Department, dated
20.10.2016 respectively, to quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to
4 to forthwith reinstate the petitioner with all consequential services flow
both service and monetary including back wages etc.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
for Mr.E.MartinJayakumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Government Counsel
ORDER
Through the impugned order dated 29.07.2005, the petitioner
was removed from service for his alleged involvement in a criminal case
in Crime No.1478 of 2003, dated 26.11.2003, and his unauthorised
absence of duty from 26.11.2003. Prior to the order of removal from
service, the petitioner was kept under suspension from service with effect
from 26.11.2003.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
criminal case in Crime No.1478 of 2003 culminated into framing of
charges and was taken on file in C.C.No.184 of 2004 by the II Additional
Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, and through a judgment dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16230 of 2018
04.05.2012, the petitioner herein was honourably acquitted from the
criminal charges. It is in this background, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into
service.
3.On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader placed
reliance on the various averments made in the counter affidavit and
submitted that the respondent is a disciplined Police Force and the
petitioner's involvement in a criminal case is a highly condemnable act.
He would also submit that, pursuant to the petitioner's involvement in the
criminal case, an oral enquiry was conducted and though the petitioner
was extended with reasonable opportunity, he had not attended the oral
enquiry, and in this background, the Disciplinary Authority had awarded
him the punishment of removal from service. He further submitted that
the petitioner herein had not approached the Appellate Authorities within
a reasonable time and therefore, his appeal against the order of removal
from service came to be rightly rejected.
4.The two grounds on which the impugned order removing the
petitioner from service came to be passed are as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16230 of 2018
“PC 17872 Selvin Paul of 36 Pln.F.coy. Armed Reserve,
who was placed under suspension with effect from
27.11.2003 is removed from service with immediate effect
for the following delinquencies.
1.Alleged involvement in R1 Mambalam PS
Cr.No.1478/2003 dated 26.11.2003 u/s.420, 511 IPC.
2.Unauthorised absent for duty from 26.11.2003.”
5.It is not the case of the respondents that the services of the
petitioner were terminated because he had brought disrespect or had
involved himself in a condemnable act to the disciplined Police Force.
But, on the other hand, the impugned order summarily relieves the
petitioner for his involvement in the criminal case and nothing more.
Therefore, when the criminal case itself has ended in acquittal and the
petitioner has been absolved from the criminal charges, the question of
involvement in the criminal case does not extend any further and
therefore, the first ground on which the petitioner's services were
terminated, has to necessarily be struck down.
6.Insofar as the second ground on which the petitioner was
removed from service is concerned, it is claimed that he had been on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16230 of 2018
unauthorised absence of duty from 26.11.2003 onwards. Admittedly, the
petitioner herein was placed under suspension on 27.11.2003. This Court
is enable to comprehend as to how the respondent can expect the presence
of the petitioner on or after 27.11.2003. If at all the petitioner was not
present in his place of work after 27.11.2003, the same cannot be termed
as unauthorised absence by any stretch of imagination. As a matter of
fact, it could be termed as 'authorised absence'. As such, the second
reason for which the petitioner was removed from service also cannot be
sustained.
7.In view of this, the subsequent orders passed in the appeal by
the 3rd respondent herein and in the mercy petition by the 2nd respondent
also cannot be sustained.
8.In the result, the impugned order in PR No.22/3(d)/2004 dated
29.07.2005 made by the 4th respondent, C.No.280/135346/PR.III(2)/2012
dated 25.05.2013 made by the 3rd respondent and
Rc.No.116196/AP.3(2)/2013 dated 01.03.2016 made by the 2nd respondent
and as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No.1011, Home (Police
-V) Department, dated 20.10.2016, are hereby quashed, and consequently,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16230 of 2018
the respondents 1 and 2 are called upon to forthwith reinstate the
petitioner with all continuity of services. However, the petitioner shall not
be entitled to any monetary benefit, including the back wages, for the
period of his non-employment.
9.The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
14.07.2021
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home (Police-V) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Veppery, Chennai – 600 007.
4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(Reserve Armed)
Chennai – 08.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.16230 of 2018
M.S. RAMESH, J.
mkn
W.P.No.16230 of 2018
14.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
