Madras High Court
S.Pragasam vs The Superintending Of Police on 21 August, 2023
Writ Appeal No.716 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 21.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal Nos.716 of 2019
S.Pragasam ... Appellant
Vs
1.The Superintending of Police,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli.
2.The DIG.,
Prison Department,
Tiruchi Range,
Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Additional Director of Prison,
Prison Department,
Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
PRAYER Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the
order dated 13.03.2015 made in W.P.No.8714 of 2006 (O.A.No.1175 of
2004).
For Appellants : Mr.S.Pragasam
Party-in-person
Page No.1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.716 of 2019
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sanjeev Kumar Spl., G.P.
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)
This Intra Court Appeal had been preferred against the order of the
learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant con
firming the punishment of compulsory retirement given to him.
2. The Appellant is a party-in-person. The case of the appellant is that
he had been working as a Warden, while so, he had made certain
complaints against the superior officer and had also made various articles in
leading tamil dailies, which had earned the wrath of the superiors and
therefore, due to threat to his life, he had taken long leave for which he had
made his application. However, no order has been passed by the authority
and he had continued to take leave, but during the month of October 2001,
he had intimated and was called upon as to whether he wanted to extend his
leave. Considering the fact that the situation has not changed during the
month of December 2001, he made an application seeking for extension
leave for a further period of one year on the ground that there was a threat
Page No.2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.716 of 2019
to his life. The said application had been rejected and thereafter, the
appellant was served with a charge memo for his alleging unauthorised
absence. He had also sought not to proceed with the disciplinary
proceedings till his complaint against the superior had not been decided.
Therefore he did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings and the
disciplinary proceedings had ended with an order of compulsory retirement,
against which he had preferred a further appeal which has also been
rejected.
3.He would contend that he was never informed about the
sanctioning of his long leave during the year 2000 and only in the year 2001,
he was asked to make an application and the application was also re
jected, which was also not informed to him. He would further submit that if
the authority had intimated that his application for leave either had been re
jected or granted, he would have preferred a further appeal in case of
rejection and would have also sought to extend the leave, in case if the leave
is granted. Therefore, he would submit that he had been targeted and
victimised and the order impugned had been passed. Without considering
Page No.3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.716 of 2019
all those things, the learned Single Judge only heard the matter and had held
that the order of punishment imposed against the appellant is correct and
need not be interfered with.
4.Countering his argument, the learned Special Government Pleader
would submit that the sanctioning of the leave had been intimated to the ap
pellant. Before the end of the sanctioned leave, he had sent a telegram
seeking to extend the leave. Since, he had not made proper applica
tion, he had been asked to give appropriate reason along with records to sub
stantiate his extension of leave. He would submit that except to state that
there was a threat of his life, he had not produced any documents to sub
stantial evidence to sanction the leave. Further he would submit that such
reasons stated in the application do not entitle a Government servant for ex
tending the leave. He would further submit that inspite of sufficient oppor
tunity had been granted to the appellant, he had not attended even the en
quiry and therefore, he would seek dismissal of the Writ Appeal.
5.We have heard the rival submission made on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
Page No.4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.716 of 2019
6.It is an admitted fact that the appellant had been remained ab
sent from service from 2001 for which he had been granted long leave
sanctioned till 16.10.2001. Even though the appellant claims that he was
not aware of the grant of the sanctioned leave, he had not stated as to how
two weeks before the date of expiry of the sanctioned leave, he had sent a
telegram seeking extension of leave.
7.In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant was
aware of the fact of sanctioning of the long leave to him and only there
fore, he had sought an extension just before the expiry of the leave and
hence, the appellant had not come to this Court with clean hands. Further,
the learned Single Judge had rightly after analysing the various provisions
of law had come to the conclusion that there was no error or infirmity in the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant. Therefore, we do
not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which
warrants interference of this Court. Accordingly the Writ Appeal fails and
it is dismissed.
Page No.5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.716 of 2019
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
21.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
pbn
Page No.6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.716 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
Pbn
To
1.The Superintending of Police,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirapalli.
2.The DIG.,
Prison Department,
Tiruchi Range,
Tiruchirapalli.
3.The Additional Director of Prison,
Prison Department,
Chennai – 600 008.
Writ Appeal No.716 of 2019
21.08.2023
Page No.7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
