Madras High Court
The Director General Of Police vs A.Paulraj Pandian on 21 October, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.2059 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.2059 of 2024
and
CMP(MD)No.14707 of 2024
1. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (L & O),
Madurai City,
Madurai. ... Appellants
vs.
A.Paulraj Pandian ... Respondent
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
made in W.P(MD)No.16257 of 2020 dated 08.03.2023.
For Appellants : Mr.SRA.Ramchandran
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatesan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 4
W.A(MD)No.2059 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Writ Court modifying
treatment of the period of suspension and the period during which the
respondent was out of employment.
2. The respondent who was working in the Police Department, was
charged with various delinquencies. An enquiry was conducted and the
disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement by order
dated 12.02.2019. It is also stated that the respondent was under suspension
between 11.07.2014 and 02.02.2015. The punishment of compulsory
retirement was challenged and the appellate authority modified the punishment
as one of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Once
this was done, the respondent sought for regularisation of the suspension period
and the period during which he was out of employment. The learned Single
Judge has directed that his suspension period should be treated as period on
leave because he has not been fully exonerated and therefore, the invocation of
Rule 54-B-9 of the Fundamental Rules is incorrect. However, for the period
during which the petitioner was out of employment that is, the period between
12.02.2019 and 06.08.2019, the learned Single Judge has directed that the said
period to be treated as on duty for all purposes since the petitioner was out of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
service because of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and
not because of the suspension. Therefore, we are unable to fault the learned
Single Judge for having made a distinction between the two periods and for
having granted the benefit of the period during which he was out of
employment because of the punishment imposed. The Writ Appeal, therefore,
fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M, J.) (L.V.G, J.)
21.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (L & O),
Madurai City,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 21.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
