Madras High Court
R.Premkumar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 June, 2024
W.P.(MD)No.11052 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P.(MD)No.11052 of 2024
R.Premkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Superintendent of Police,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to revoke the
suspension order passed by him in his proceedings in C.No.P1/17798/2022,
D.O.No.431/2022 dated 19.05.2022 in the light of the Judgment rendered in
Ajaykumar Chowdhary vs. Union of India and others reported in 2015 (3) CTC
119 and based on the petitioner’s representation dated 16.03.2023 and
consequently direct the respondent to reinstate him and post him in a non-
sensitive post.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu
For Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent to
revoke the suspension order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in
C.No.P1/17798/2022, D.O.No.431/2022 dated 19.05.2022 and consequently
direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service and post him in a non-
sensitive post.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on
15.04.1997 in the respondent Department and then, he was upgraded as Grade-I
Police Constable in the year 2007 and thereafter, he was upgraded as Head
Constable in the year 2014. While so, the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land
Grabbing Special Cell, Tenkasi District, has arrested the petitioner in
connection with a criminal case registered in Crime No.120 of 2021 for the
alleged offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 423, 465, 468 and 471 IPC
based on the confession statement of the co-accused and thereafter, the
investigation has been completed and the same was taken cognizance in
C.C.No.203 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai and the
case is pending for trial. The allegation against the petitioner is that the
petitioner herein has fabricated documents and created a forged sale deed. In
view of the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 19.05.2022.
The petitioner has given a representation to the respondent on 16.03.2023 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
revoke the suspension order passed against him in the light of the Judgment
rendered in Ajaykumar Chowdhary vs. Union of India and others reported in
2015 (3) CTC 119.
4. Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is kept under suspension for more than two years
and no review order has been passed for continuing the petitioner under
suspension. The petitioner has given a representation to the respondent on
16.03.2023 seeking reinstatement. But the same has not been considered by the
respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
5. Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
attracted the attention of this Court to the Judgment rendered in Ajaykumar
Chowdhary vs. Union of India and others reported in 2015 (3) CTC 119 and
the same is extracted hereunder:
“8. Suspension, specially preceding the
formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or
temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short
duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if
its renewal is not based on sound reasoning
contemporaneously available on the record, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would render it punitive in nature.
Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably
commence with delay, are plagued with
procrastination prior and post the drawing up of
the memorandum of charges, and eventually
culminate after even longer delay.
9. Protracted periods of suspension,
repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become
the norm and not the exception that they ought to
be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy
of insinuations, the scorn of society and the
derision of his department, has to endure this
excruciation even before he is formally charged
with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence.
His torment is his knowledge that if and when
charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time
for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its
culmination, that is, to determine his innocence or
iniquity. Much too often this has now become an
accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably, the
sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution
does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a
speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume
the presumption of innocence to the accused. But
we must remember that both these factors are
legal ground norms, are inextricable tenets of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Common Law Jurisprudence, antedating even the
Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that — “We
will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to
any man either justice or right.” In similar vein
the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America guarantees that in all
criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial. "
6. The above decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In view
of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents
to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.03.2023 for revoking
the suspension of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in
accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. No costs.
03.06.2024
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
Ncc : yes/no
TSG
To
The Superintendent of Police,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.N.MANJULA, J.
TSG
03.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
