Madras High Court
R.Srimurugan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 31 March, 2023
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.4737 of 2023
R.Srimurugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. Superintendent of Police,
Water Tower, Round Rd,
Elil Nagar, Dindigul,
Tamil Nadu 624 003.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vedasandur Sub-Division,
Tamil Nadu 624 6710.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Koombur Police Station,
Vedasandur Sub-Division,
Dindigul, Tamil Nadu.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
South Kovil Street, Madurai,
Tamil Nadu. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records in
connection with the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide his
proceedings in Ref.No:-D.O.96/2023, C.No.F1/2797/27/2023, dated
02.02.2023 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Balasubramani
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the
learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2.This case has a checkered history. The petitioner joined the police
department as Grade II Police Constable in the year 2003. Since the petitioner
had unauthorisedly absented himself, charge memos came to be issued.
Punishments of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect were imposed on
him. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed writ petitions. They were
disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide common order dated
24.03.2021 in W.A.(MD)No.620 of 2020 etc, batch in the following terms:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
“5. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the
issue is one of un-authorised absence. The fact that the appellant suffered an
accident, leading to head injury, is not disputed. It is no-body's case that he was
un-authorised absent prior to the accident. There is no other charge than the
unauthorised absence against him. From the year, 2015, he has been performing
his duty without facing any charge. Therefore, we are of the view that these
aspects are to be taken into consideration by the first respondent. Though we are
not in agreement with the submissions made by the appellant on merit, we do feel
that considering the facts as narrated, it is a fit case for re-consideration for
imposing a lesser punishment cumulatively.
6. In the light of the discussion made above, the Writ Appeal and the Writ
Petitions are allowed, setting aside the order the learned Single Judge dated
14.11.2018 made in W.P.(MD)No.22740 of 2018 and quashing the impugned
orders passed by the first respondent and remitting the same to the first respondent
to consider imposition of lesser punishment to the petitioner. Appropriate orders
will have to be passed by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ”
Pursuant to the same, G.O.(2D).No.89, Home (Police VI) Department, dated
18.03.2022 and 11 other G.Os came to be issued. That led to stagnation of the
petitioner's pay. Challenging the G.Os, the petitioner filed writ petitions and
orders have been reserved. At this stage, the petitioner was transferred to
another district. The primary order came to be passed by the Inspector General
of Police, South Zone, Madurai on 04.08.2022. Consequential order relieving
the petitioner from Avaniyapuram Police Station was passed by the
Commissioner of Police, Madurai City on 05.08.2022. Challenging the same,
the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.19529 of 2022. In the said writ petition, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
respondents took the stand that the transfer and posting order dated 05.08.2022
filed by the petitioner is a rank forgery. The petitioner filed his rejoinder in
response to the said allegation. The writ petition came to be allowed on
27.09.2022 in the following terms:-
“17. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner is
transferred as traffic police, that would meet the ends of justice. Hence, this Court is
directing the respondents to post the petitioner as Traffic Police within Madurai
District.”
Aggrieved by the same, the department filed W.A.(MD)No.1193 of 2022. The
petitioner also filed W.A.(MD)No.1271 of 2022. The writ appeals were
disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 28.11.2022 in the following
terms:-
“4. The matter was heard in detail earlier. Today, when the writ appeals were taken
up for further hearing, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants in
W.A.(MD)No.1193 of 2022 fairly submitted that the Government have now decided to post
the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.1271 of 2022 in any one of the places, namely Virudhunagar
District or Theni District or Dindigul District and with regard to the production of fabricated
transfer order by the appellant which claims to be not an order issued by the competent
authority, the learned Additional Advocate General sought liberty to conduct an enquiry
against the writ petitioner in the manner known to law.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.1271 of 2022 submitted
that the appellant may be posted in Dindigul District and with regard to the enquiry to be
conducted relating to the allegation of production of fabricated transfer order, the petitioner
who is present in Court has agreed and undertook to co-operate for the same.
6. Recording the aforesaid submissions, the appellants in W.A.(MD)No.1193 of 2022
are directed to issue necessary posting orders to the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.1271 of 2022
posting him at Dindigul District within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
copy of this Judgment. On receipt of such order, the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.1271 of 2022
is directed to join duty forthwith. The period of absence of the appellant shall be adjusted
towards his eligible leave as per the rules.”
Thereafter, the transfer and posting order dated 13.12.2022 was issued and the
petitioner was directed to report for duty before the Superintendent of Police at
Dindigul District. The petitioner was posted at Koombur police station. The
petitioner also joined duty on 15.12.2022. While so, the impugned suspension
order came to be issued on 02.02.2023. Challenging the same, the present writ
petition came to be filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the
contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and
called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order. The respondents have
filed the counter affidavit and also the typed set of papers and the learned
Additional Advocate General took me through their contents.
4.The stand of the respondents is that since serious allegations have been
made against the petitioner and the Hon'ble Division Bench had also granted
liberty to the department to conduct enquiry, in the very nature of things, the
petitioner has to be kept away from his duty and that is why, he had been rightly
suspended. The learned Additional Advocate General drew my attention to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
conduct of the writ petitioner. It is contended that an order of suspension is not
a punishment and that in the event of the petitioner coming out clean in the
enquiry, he would be conferred with all the consequential benefits. The stand
of the respondents is that the employer has the right to suspend an employee
during the pendency of an enquiry and that the writ court ought not to interfere
with the same. The learned Additional Advocate General also relied on the
decision reported in 2022 (2) CTC 353 (P.Kannan Vs. Commissioner for
Municipal Administration and others). According to the learned Additional
Advocate General, since a serious allegation of forging the signature of the
Deputy Commissioner of Police in the relieving order had been made, such a
person will have to be necessarily suspended from service. He pressed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record. It is a fact that the petitioner has come out with an
explanation in the earlier writ proceedings and a learned Judge of this Court
found the same to be acceptable. But then, the Hon'ble Division Bench had set
aside the order of the learned single Judge and granted liberty to the department
to conduct enquiry. The petitioner through his counsel had also given an
undertaking to cooperate with such an enquiry. As on date, the charge memo is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
yet to be issued. The competent authority is only contemplating to hold an
enquiry. I therefore refrain from going into the merits of the allegations made
against the writ petitioner.
6.The only point for consideration is whether the first respondent was
justified in issuing the impugned order of suspension. It is true that an order of
suspension will not constitute punishment. That is a well settled proposition.
Power to suspend the delinquent employee is one thing while justification for
exercise of the said power is another. A suspension order cannot be issued
casually. It must serve some purpose. The overall context will have to be taken
into account. In this case, the transfer order was issued by the Inspector
General of Police, South Zone, Madurai on 04.08.2022 and the consequential
proceedings were issued by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City on
05.08.2022. It is not as if the petitioner filed the writ petition immediately
thereafter. The petition came to be filed only on 22.08.2022 and it was listed
for admission on 23.08.2022. The petitioner had not filed the order in original
before this Court. He only filed a downloaded copy. The case of the petitioner
is that what was filed by him was uploaded by another constable and that it was
subsequently deleted by him. Of-course, the City Crime branch police have
now taken the stand that the petitioner's version is false. It is the fact that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
transfer order was issued and relieving order was issued. The dispute is only as
to whether the copy that was filed before this Court is a true copy. These are
matters which must be gone into only in a regular enquiry. They cannot be
decided at this stage. The allegation made against the petitioner was considered
by a learned Judge of this Court who found the petitioner's version to be
acceptable. Of-course, the Hon'ble Division Bench had set aside the order of
the learned single Judge and had granted leave to the department to hold
enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner had also undertaken to extend his
cooperation. Based on what transpired before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the
petitioner was transferred to Dindigul and he had also joined duty in Koombur
Police Station. If the department had intended to suspend the petitioner, they
need not have transferred the petitioner at all. They could have told the Hon'ble
Division Bench that they intended to keep the petitioner under suspension. It is
not as if something new cropped up after the petitioner joined duty in Dindigul.
The entire case against the petitioner substantially rests on documentary
evidence. The department had already taken the statement of the constable who
according to the petitioner uploaded the offending document. The respondents
have not argued that if the petitioner is not suspended it would affect the
enquiry. The petitioner is only a constable. Though more than seven months
have elapsed after the cause of action arose, the disciplinary authority is yet to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
issue charge memo. All the relevant facts are already on record. In these
circumstances to suspend an employee in contemplation of conducting enquiry
into grave charges of misconduct is unreasonable. In my view, suspending the
petitioner at this stage is wholly unnecessarily. In any event, by continuing the
petitioner's suspension, no purpose will be served. The occurrence had taken
place when the petitioner was posted at Avaniyapuram Police Station. Now the
petitioner is posted in Dindigul. I decline to set aside the suspension order only
for the reason that the petitioner is a member of unformed service and the order
cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. However, for the reasons mentioned
above, I direct the first respondent to revoke the petitioner's suspension and
allow him to rejoin the duty forthwith and without delay.
7. The Writ Petition is allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
31.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
Issue order copy on 13.04.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. Superintendent of Police,
Water Tower, Round Rd,
Elil Nagar, Dindigul,
Tamil Nadu 624 003.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vedasandur Sub-Division,
Tamil Nadu 624 6710.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Koombur Police Station,
Vedasandur Sub-Division,
Dindigul, Tamil Nadu.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Police Station,
South Kovil Street, Madurai,
Tamil Nadu.
W.P(MD)No.5055 of 2023
31.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
