Madras High Court
K.Govindasamy vs The Director General Of Police on 8 December, 2022
W.A(MD)No.380 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)No.380 of 2022
K.Govindasamy ... Appellant/Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order, dated 17.03.2022 passed in W.P(MD)No.16454 of 2015, on the
file of this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.380 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order, dated 17.03.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.16454 of 2015, this Writ Appeal has been
preferred by the appellant / writ petitioner.
2.The case of the appellant / writ petitioner is that he was
recruited as a Police Constable on 01.12.2003. While he was in service, he
drove the police van bearing Registration No.TN-72-G-0762 for conveyance
of prisoners from Central Prison, Palayamkottai to Judicial Magistrate Court,
Valliyoor. When the Van was about to move from four way Highway to the
left side service road leading to Valliyoor, a Tanker Lorry moving before the
appellant's vehicle on the four way Highway also signaled for left turn and
turned to the left side service road leading to Valliyoor, but the Tanker Lorry
suddenly changed its direction and turned right and went to the four lane
Highway road. In order to avoid hitting the lorry, the appellant turned the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.380 of 2022
vehicle to the right and the vehicle climbed up on the right side median and
stopped. The remanded prisoner, who was sitting near the window in the
van, has sustained simple injury by hitting on the side window. A criminal
case has been registered against the appellant in Crime No.313 of 2011, for
the offence under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C and the case in S.T.C.No.
3475 of 2011 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valliyoor. For
the aforesaid incident, the appellant was placed under suspension by the
third respondent on 21.04.2011 and thereafter, the said order of suspension
was revoked on 29.04.2011.
3.It is the further case of the appellant that the third respondent
also initiated departmental proceedings and issued a charge memo to the
appellant for rash and negligent driving, which caused damage to the
vehicle and hurt to one remand prisoner. The appellant has objected to the
departmental action on the ground of parallel proceedings on the same set
of charges. The third respondent appointed an enquiry officer. Based on the
enquiry report, the third respondent vide proceedings in P.R.No.62 of 2011
under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D & A) Rules, 1955, dated 11.07.2012, imposed
a punishment of “postponement of increment for three years which shall
operate to postpone his future increments without any prejudice to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.380 of 2022
criminal case in Court”. Challenging the said order, the appellant has
preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent,
by order, dated 10.10.2012, rejected the appeal petition, as time barred.
Hence, the appellant preferred a review petition before the first respondent.
The first respondent vide proceedings in R.Dis.No.226330/AP.2(1)/2012,
dated 19.10.2014, modified the punishment as “postponement of increment
for one year without cumulative effect” and the consequential orders, dated
09.01.2015 and 09.06.2015 passed by the third respondent. Challenging
the same, the appellant has preferred the Writ Petition.
4.After elaborate discussions, the learned Single Judge, by order,
dated 17.03.2022, passed the following order:-
a) The respondents are directed to regularize
the suspension period as duty period.
b)The respondents are directed to give No
Objection Certificate for participating in the direct
recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police.
c)As far as the punishment for stoppage of
increment for one year without cumulative effect is
concerned, the same is not interfered with.
d)As far as the recovery of Rs.2833/- is
concerned since the government vehicle are not insured,
the petitioner is liable to pay the repair charges and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.380 of 2022
therefore the amount of Rs.2833/- shall be recovered in
easy installments.
e)As far as the monetary benefits is concerned,
the respondents are directed to consider and pass an
order for the monetary benefits.
15.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.”
Challenging the impugned order, dated 17.03.2022, passed by the learned
Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present Writ Appeal.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised various
grounds in the Writ Appeal and prayed for setting aside the impugned order,
dated 17.03.2022 passed in the Writ Petition.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
7.On a perusal of the order passed by the first respondent, it is
seen that the revisional authority has gone into the merits of the order
passed by the original authority. We also perused the order passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.380 of 2022
second respondent, who is an Appellate Authority, rejecting the appeal filed
by the appellant, as time barred. When the said order has been challenged
before the revisional authority, the revisional authority has to pass an order
whether the said appeal is barred by limitation or not, but has gone into the
merits of the case. Therefore, prima facie, the said order passed by the
revisional authority which is contrary to the order passed by the Appellate
Authority, the revisional authority ought not to have gone into the merits of
the case and further, the Writ Court has also considered the other grounds
and rejected the claim of the appellant.
8.The Writ Court has issued a direction for regularization of his
service during suspension period and for giving 'No Objection Certificate' if
any, the appellant can participate for the fresh recruitment for the post of
Sub-Inspector and for recovering the amount is concerned. Therefore, the
appellant's grievance is only in respect of confirming the punishment order
passed by the first respondent. We are of the view that even though the
first respondent has not considered the same in a proper perspective, the
Writ Court has considered the same on its own merits and passed an order
in the Writ Petition. We also perused the impugned order passed by the Writ
Court and we are satisfied that a detailed order has been passed in the Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.380 of 2022
Petition and there is no apparent error and there is no legal means to
interfere in the said punishment. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere
with the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly,
this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[D.K.K.,J.] & [R.V.,J.]
08.12.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.380 of 2022
D. KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ps
ORDER MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.380 of 2022
08.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
