Madras High Court
C.Kasturi Gandhi vs Thiru.S.K.Prabakar Ias on 3 March, 2022
Cont.P.(MD) No.823 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Cont.P.(MD) No.823 of 2021
in
W.P.(MD) No.22794 of 2019
C.Kasturi Gandhi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Thiru.S.K.Prabakar IAS,
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police - 2) Department,
Fort, St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.Thiru.J.K.Tripathy, I.P.S.,
The Director General of Police,
Law and Order,
Office of Director of General of Police,
Chennai.
3.Dr.M.Ravi, I.P.S.,
The Additional Director General of Police (Administration),
Additional Director General of Police Office,
Office of Director of General of Police Campus,
Chennai.
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.823 of 2021
4.Thiru.A.Arun, I.P.S.,
The Commissioner,
Madurai City,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to
punish the respondent/contemnors for willful disobeyance to the orders of
this Court dated 08.11.2019 in W.P.(MD).No.22794 of 2019 and punish
respondents for contempt.
For Petitioner : Mr.AL.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar,
Additional Government Pleader.
******
ORDER
This Court passed an order on 08.11.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.22794
of 2019 as follows:-
“6.From the materials on record and the facts
stated above, it is seen that the petitioner was not
allowed to retire from service and was not given
promotion and other benefits, due to the pendency of the
disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings. This
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.823 of 2021
Court, by the order dated 20.04.2016, has quashed the
disciplinary proceedings and accepting the said order,
the first respondent has also dropped the disciplinary
proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner has acquitted
in the criminal case, by the judgment dated 21.08.2019
made in S.C.No.131 of 2017. Inasmuch as no
disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are
pending against the petitioner, the respondents are
directed to pass order, taking into consideration the
Government Orders in G.O.(2D)No.244, Home (SC)
Department, dated 04.08.2017 and G.O.(2D)No.525,
Home (Police-2) Department, dated 29.12.2016,
whereby disciplinary proceedings are dropped and
acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, by the
judgment dated 21.08.2019 made in S.C.No.131 of 2017
on the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2019,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.”
2.Thus, with reference to the representation of the writ petitioner
dated 10.10.2019, the relief was granted by this Court. The said
representation dated 10.10.2019 reveals that the petitioner made a request to
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.823 of 2021
the authorities to treat the period of suspension from 26.05.2014 to
31.07.2015 spent by him as duty for all purposes and he may be deemed to
have been released from suspension and allowed to retire from service on
the date of superannuation on 31.07.2015.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondents made a submission that the order dated
08.11.2019 has been complied by the respondents by issuing G.O.(2D) No.
216, Home (Pol.2) Department, dated 07.09.2021. However, the learned
counsel for the petitioner raised an objection by stating that the petitioner
was allowed to retire from service, but the terminal benefits are yet to be
settled. However, this Court has to go by the order passed by this Court
with reference to the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on
10.10.2019. The implementation order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.
(2D) No.216, dated 07.09.2021 reveals that the petitioner was allowed to
retire from service on the date of superannuation, i.e., 31.07.2015 and
further, the period of suspension spent by him from 26.05.2014 to
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.823 of 2021
31.07.2015 also be regulated as duty under Rule 54-B-1(1)(b) of the
Fundamental Rules. In view of the fact that the relief sought for by the writ
petitioner in his representation was considered and an order in his favour
was passed in entirety in compliance with the orders passed in the writ
petition, no further adjudication is required in respect of this contempt
petition and accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.
03.03.2022
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
abr
To
1.Thiru.S.K.Prabakar IAS,
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police - 2) Department,
Fort, St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.Thiru.J.K.Tripathy, I.P.S.,
The Director General of Police,
Law and Order,
Office of Director of General of Police,
Chennai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.(MD) No.823 of 2021
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
abr
3.Dr.M.Ravi, I.P.S.,
The Additional Director General of Police (Administration),
Additional Director General of Police Office,
Office of Director of General of Police Campus,
Chennai.
4.Thiru.A.Arun, I.P.S.,
The Commissioner,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
Cont.P.(MD) No.823 of 2021
in W.P.(MD) No.22794 of 2019
03.03.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
