Madras High Court
M.Ganesan vs The Director General Of Police on 23 September, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
M.Ganesan : Petitioner in both Writ Petitions
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai – 04.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range,
Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni. : Respondents in W.P.(MD)No.21115/15
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai – 600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range,
Dindigul.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni. : Respondents in W.P.(MD)No.23460/16
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.21115 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the
impugned order R.C.No.201618/AP, 2(3)/2015 passed by the first
respondent dated 30.09.2015 and quash the same and issue
consequent direction directing the first respondent to promote the
petitioner as Special Sub-Inspector after considering the period of
suspension from 14.01.2008 to 30.09.2008, 01.10.2008 TO
23.03.2011 as period on duty for all purpose with back wages and all
attendant service and monetary benefits.
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.23460 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first
respondent herein in G.O.(2D)No.41, Home (Pol.VI) Department
dated 07.02.2011 insofar as the period of absence till reinstatement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/11
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
can be treated as leave to which is eligible and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents herein to regularize the service
of the petitioner from 14.01.2008 to 23.03.2011 and to give all
service benefits including promotion and other monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
[In both Writ Petitions]
COMMON ORDER
W.P.(MD)No.23460 of 2016 has been filed challenging the
order dated 07.02.2011 passed by the first respondent modifying the
punishment imposed on the petitioner to one of stoppage of
increment for two years without cumulative effect and the period of
suspension of the petitioner from 14.01.2008 to 29.01.2008 was
treated as 15 days EL, 30.01.2008 to 02.04.2008 as period of un-
earned leave [64 days] and from 03.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 as period
of loss of pay [181 days] and from 01.10.2008 to 23.03.2011 as out of
employment period [906 days]. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
aforesaid punishment imposed by the first respondent under the
impugned order.
2.W.P.(MD)No.21115 of 2015 has been filed challenging
the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the first respondent rejecting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
the request of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of
Special Sub-Inspector after considering the period of suspension
from 14.01.2008 to 30.09.2008, 01.10.2008 to 23.03.2011 as period
on duty.
3.Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same subject
matter, they are disposed of by a common order.
4.The following facts are undisputed. Disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for his
unauthorised absence from duty and for his involvement in a criminal
case. The petitioner was involved in an accident case and he was
charged for causing a motor accident and for not possessing the
driving license at the time of the accident. On account of the same,
the petitioner was suspended from service by a suspension order
issued by the respondents on 14.01.2008.
5.In the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner
participated in the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer
appointed by the respondents. The enquiry officer submitted a report
holding that the charge framed against the petitioner has been
proved and the petitioner was held guilty and based on the same, the
fourth respondent passed an order dated 14.10.2008, dismissing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the third respondent. The third
respondent by its order dated 05.03.2009 upheld the order of the
fourth respondent by dismissing the appeal. A review was filed by
the petitioner before the second respondent seeking to review the
order passed by the third respondent. The second respondent
modified the order of dismissing the petitioner from service to one of
compulsory retirement vide order dated 10.05.2009. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner preferred Mercy Petition before the first
respondent. The first respondent dismissed the Mercy Petition filed
by the petitioner on 14.12.2009.
6.Thereafter, the criminal case pending against the
petitioner in S.T.C.No.2238 of 2008 ended in acquittal by the order
of the Criminal Court dated 11.08.2010. Pursuant to the acquittal
order, the petitioner once again filed a Mercy Petition before the first
respondent seeking to set aside the punishment imposed on him.
Under the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated
07.02.2011, the punishment was modified from compulsory
retirement to one of stoppage of increment for a period of two years
without cumulative effect and treating the period of absence till the
reinstatement as leave period to which he is eligible. Aggrieved by
the same, W.P.(MD)No.23460 of 2016 has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
7.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is now aggrieved only by the punishment that the period of
petitioner's absence has to be treated as period of absence from the
date of suspension till the date of his reinstatement as leave period.
According to him, considering the fact that the criminal case has
ended in acquittal, the aforesaid punishment imposed by the first
respondent in the impugned order is harsh and it has to be set aside.
8.On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents would submit that the acquittal order
passed in favour of the petitioner by the Criminal Court was passed
only by giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. She would also
submit that admittedly the petitioner was not possessing a driving
license when he caused the motor accident. Therefore, she would
submit that the question of once again modifying the punishment of
the petitioner by this Court at this stage does not arise.
9.She would also submit that the connected writ petition
namely W.P.(MD)No.21115 of 2015, wherein the petitioner is
seeking for promotion to the post of Special Sub-Inspector by
treating the period of suspension from 14.01.2008 to 30.09.2008,
01.10.2008 to 23.03.2011 as period of duty is also not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
For the aforesaid reasons, she would also submit that subsequent to
the filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has been promoted to
the post of Sub-Inspector on 19.10.2020.
10.The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings
and he had also submitted his explanation and only after giving due
consideration to his explanation and only based on the evidence
available on record, the enquiry report was submitted. Originally, by
order dated 14.10.2008, the fourth respondent, based on the enquiry
report dismissed the petitioner from service. The appellate authority
namely the third respondent also confirmed the order of the fourth
respondent by dismissing the appeal by its order dated 05.03.2009.
In the review petition filed by the petitioner before the second
respondent, the second respondent modified the punishment
imposed on the petitioner to one of compulsory retirement by its
order dated 10.05.2009. Thereafter, the Mercy Petition filed by the
petitioner before the first respondent seeking for further
interference with the punishment was rejected by the order of the
first respondent dated 14.12.2009 through G.O.(2D)No.497.
11.The petitioner was acquitted of the criminal case. It was
a motor accident case. By the order of the Criminal Court in
S.T.C.No.2238 of 2008, dated 11.08.2010. However, as seen from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
the aforesaid judgment passed by the criminal Court, only by giving
the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, he was acquitted. Thereafter,
based on the acquittal order passed by the criminal Court, the
petitioner once again filed a Mercy Petition before the first
respondent. By the impugned order dated 07.02.2011, the first
respondent further reduced the punishment of the petitioner to one
of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without
cumulative effect and by treating the period of absence of the
petitioner from the date of his suspension till the date of his
reinstatement as leave period with which he is eligible.
12.This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot re-appreciate the evidence that too when the first respondent
only based on the evidence available on record which was placed
before the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the
petitioner is liable to be punished for the charges framed against him
in the disciplinary proceedings. As seen from the impugned orders,
the petitioner's punishment has also been reduced to the maximum
extent possible even though originally by the order of the fourth
respondent dated 14.10.2008, he was dismissed from service. The
petitioner was also acquitted from the criminal case only by giving
benefit of doubt to him. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order of the first respondent dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
07.02.2011 passed by the first respondent which is the subject
matter of W.P.(MD)No.23406 of 2016.
13.Insofar as the connected Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.
21115 of 2015 is concerned, in view of the fact that this Court is not
entertaining W.P.(MD)No.23460 of 2016, this Court is also not
interfering with the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the first
respondent rejecting the petitioner's request to promote him as
Special Sub-Inspector by treating the period of his suspension from
14.01.2008 to 30.09.2008, 01.10.2008 to 23.03.2011 as period on
duty for all purpose with backwages and with all attendant monetary
and service benefits.
14.In the result, there is no merit in these Writ Petitions.
There shall be no order as to costs.
23.09.2024
Index :Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes/No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range,
Dindigul.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
MR
W.P.(MD)Nos.21115 of 2015 & 23460 of 2016
23.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
