Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5490 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2023
W.P.No.27616 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.27616 of 2022
and WMP Nos.26887 and 26888 of 2022
V.Vedachalam ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records
relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his
proceedings Rc.No.67610/Con.II(2)/2007 dated 12.12.2017 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to disburse the petitioner's
pension along with retirement benefits like Gratuity, General Provident
Fund, Special Provident Fund, Encashment Earned Leave and Unearned
Leave on Private Affairs with interest.
For Petitioner : Mr.JR.Hemalatha
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27616 of 2022
For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajesh
Government Advocate
ORDER
In a trap case registered by the authorities of Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, a case in Cr.No.20 of 2005, the petitioner along with the
Inspector viz., S.Krishnan, was implicated for the offence punishable under
Prevention of Corruption Act. The Criminal Special Case No.3/2008 on the
file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu ended in acquittal through an
order dated 24.04.2015. In the meantime, the Commissioner of Disciplinary
Proceedings had conducted enquiry and charges against the petitioner was
held to be proved in the final report dated 10.12.2015. The petitioner had
submitted his further representation on 20.04.2016. Through the impugned
order dated 12.12.2017, the first respondent herein, had imposed the
punishment of compulsory retirement, which is now put under challenge in
the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
respondents do not have any authority to withhold the pensionary benefits
and also since the punishment is one of the compulsory retirement, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27616 of 2022
petitioner is entitled for the benefits from the date of punishment.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate place reliance on the
averments in the counter affidavit and submits that the Director, DVAC has
filed an appeal against the acquittal before this Court on 05.08.2015 in
C.A.SR.No.34951 of 2015 and the same is yet to be numbered. He further
submits that since the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature
and also the co-delinquent viz., the Inspector of Police had challenged the
enquiry proceedings before this Court, which has been stayed, they are not
in a position to disburse the benefits.
4. It is not in dispute that under Service Regulations, governing the
respondent department, the respondents are not empowered to withhold the
retirement and pensionary benefits to a member of their service for
punishment of compulsory retirement. The only objection seems to be that
the Director of DVAC has preferred an appeal before this Court. Even
assuming that the judgment of the appeal has been challenged, I am unable
to comprehend as to how the retirement and pensionary benefits can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27616 of 2022
withheld, particularly, when the first respondent herein had chosen to
impose the punishment of compulsory retirement. This apart, the
proceedings as against the co-delinquent viz., S.Krishnan, the Inspector of
Police will not be an embargo or impediment to disburse the benefits to the
petitioner herein. Pendency of such proceedings against the co-delinquent
will have absolutely no bearing on the case of the petitioner. Thus, when the
first respondent himself has chosen to relieve the petitioner by imposing the
punishment of compulsory retirement, the petitioner would be entitled for all
the retirement benefits from the date of such punishment i.e., 12.12.2017
together with interest.
5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner would be satisfied if the retirement benefits are disbursed at the
earliest and no interference may be required to the impugned order of
punishment.
6. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to forthwith disburse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27616 of 2022
all the retirement benefits including pensionary benefits to the petitioner
together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition is partly allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.06.2023
Index:Yes Speaking order sr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27616 of 2022
M.S.RAMESH,J.
Sr
To
1. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
W.P.No.27616 of 2022
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!