K.G.Mani vs The Director General Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 14691 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14691 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 August, 2022

Madras High Court

K.G.Mani vs The Director General Of Police on 22 August, 2022

                                                                                W.A.No.1900 of 2022

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 22.08.2022

                                                           CORAM:

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
                                                        and
                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                                    W.A.No.1900 of 2022


                     K.G.Mani                                                          ..Appellant

                                                             Vs.

                     1.The Director General of Police,
                       Chennai-600 004.

                     2.Deputy Inspector General of Police,
                       Villupuram Range,
                       Villupuram.

                     3.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Cuddalore District,
                       Cuddalore.

                     4.The Secretary,
                       State Human Rights Commission,
                       Chennai-600 004.
                     5.Amirthalingam
                     6.Liyagathi Ali
                     7.Narayanasamy                                             ..Respondents


                                  Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
                     dated 05.08.2010 in W.P.No.12178 of 2006.


                     1/7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 W.A.No.1900 of 2022



                                  For Appellant         :     Mr.K.Kannan for
                                                              Mr.K.Raja

                                  For Respondents       :     Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru,
                                                              Special Government Pleader
                                                              for R1 to R3

                                                              Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu,
                                                              Additional Government Pleader
                                                              for R4

                                                         JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Paresh Upadhyay.,J)

Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 05.08.2010

recorded on W.P.No.12178 of 2006. This appeal is by the writ

petitioner.

2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that,

the relief as prayed for ought to have been granted by learned Single

Judge and refusal to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, in the facts like the case on hand, is

miscarriage of justice and therefore this appeal be entertained. It is

noted that, learned advocate for the appellant / writ petitioner has

taken this Court through earlier round of litigation and the reasons

recorded by learned Single Judge to contend that, the relief prayed

for ought to have been granted.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1900 of 2022

3. Learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that,

on the basis of the counter filed on behalf of the State, the petitioner

was not entitled to any relief and dismissal of writ petition is just and

proper and no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted

that this appeal be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties

and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as

under:-

4.1 The delay petition is allowed today by a separate order.

Though the application indicates delay of 363 days delay, as such

delay by this time is of more than a decade. With a view to see that,

the case of the writ petitioner is considered on merits, without going

into the justification of the delay, the delay is condoned and the

matter is taken up for hearing.

4.2 We find that, the date of appointment of the writ

petitioner was 01.04.1973. He has retired from the service before

years. He was initially removed from the service by way of

punishment for proved mis-conduct inter-alia on the charge of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1900 of 2022

accepting bribe. On some technical point, challenge to the removal

order was accepted and the same was remanded to the competent

authority. Authorities passed fresh order of reinstatement on

29.04.1995. Thereafter, the punishment order was passed

withholding increment for two years without cumulative effect. The

same was challenged before Tribunal, which did not interfere and in

turn before this Court.

4.3 The petition was contested, by filing counter, wherein all

the service details of the writ petitioner was placed on record.

4.4 Learned Single Judge, on the basis of the contest put

forward arrived at the conclusion in paragraph 6, which reads as

under:-

“6. The appeal filed was considered in terms

of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police

Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1955, including the adequency of

punishment. As the punishment is found

proportionate to the gravity of the office,

and the interference in the punishment can be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1900 of 2022

made only on limited grounds, no case is made

out to interfere with the impugned orders.”

4.5 We have considered the contents of the counter and the

reasons recorded in the order under challenge and the findings

recorded by learned Single Judge. In totality we find that, no

interference is required in the order passed by learned Single Judge.