Madras High Court
T.Paramasivam vs Superintendent Of Police on 20 June, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.16582 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.16582 of 2025
T.Paramasivam ... Petitioner
-vs-
Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in
the post of Grade - II Police Constable, by considering his acquittal from the
criminal case registered against him with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Mohammed Ali
For Respondent : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in the post of Grade-II Police Constable, taking into
account his acquittal in the criminal case registered against him, along with all
attendant service and monetary benefits.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 12:30:44 pm )
2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the
admission stage itself.
3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Grade-II Police
Constable on 30.11.2003 through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
(TNPSC). He initially served in the 11th Battalion of the Tamil Nadu Special
Police at Rajapalayam and was subsequently transferred to various units, lastly
serving in the Motor Transport Section of the Tirunelveli District Armed Reserve
as a Driver.
4. Further, an FIR in Crime No.129/2013 was registered against the
petitioner on 16.05.2013 under Sections 452, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC and
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. He was
remanded to judicial custody on 17.05.2013 and was placed under suspension on
the same day. Based on the conviction rendered by the trial Court, the petitioner
was dismissed from service by the respondent. Meanwhile, departmental enquiry
proceedings were initiated and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. However, the
petitioner had submitted a representation seeking deferment of the enquiry
pending disposal of his criminal appeal. No final order has been passed in the
departmental proceedings till date.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 12:30:44 pm )
5. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2014 before the III
Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, which partly allowed his appeal on
26.09.2016 by acquitting him of all charges except Section 323 IPC. Aggrieved,
the petitioner preferred Crl.R.C.(MD) No.754 of 2016 before this Court.
Simultaneously, the de-facto complainant preferred Crl.A.(MD)No.38 of 2017
seeking confirmation of conviction.
6. The petitioner submits that on 30.08.2023, this Court passed a common
judgment, allowing the petitioner's revision and acquitting him of all charges,
thereby, setting aside the conviction rendered by the trial Court. Following his
acquittal, the petitioner submitted representations dated 27.11.2023 and
11.12.2024, requesting reinstatement in service with all attendant benefits.
However, the respondent has failed to consider or pass any orders on the said
representations, leaving the petitioner without any remedy.
7. The petitioner submits that he has been honourably acquitted of all
criminal charges and therefore, the basis of his dismissal no longer exists. In the
absence of any independent departmental findings, the continued refusal to
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 12:30:44 pm )
reinstate the petitioner amounts to gross injustice and violation of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Petitioner prays that this Court be
pleased to issue an appropriate direction to the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner in service with continuity and all attendant benefits, considering his
honourable acquittal in Crime No.129/2013.
8. Heard both sides.
9. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is
made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same
on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of
keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the
representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and
hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same
within a stipulated time.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 12:30:44 pm )
10. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the
respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.12.2024, on
its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving
due opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not
expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is
open to the respondent to consider the same on its own merits.
11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
NCC : Yes / No 20.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To:-
The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Tirunelveli District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 12:30:44 pm )
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
smn2
20.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 12:30:44 pm )
