C.Sundaram, v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN C.Sundaram S/o Chinnapaiyan Head Constable 851 Formerly PEW, Namakkal District, Now serving at Namakkal Town P.S., Namakkal District.
.. Petitioner /versus/ 1.The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem.
3.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 4.
.. Respondents Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in PR.No.17/G1/2009 u/r 3(b) dated 10.12.11 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in RC No.B1/15958/2008; Appeal No.04/2012 dated 01.02.12 and quash the same and grant such other further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 1/5
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents :Mr.P.Balathandayutham, SGP ------
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the punishment imposed pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
2. It is now stated by the respondents, through a counter that the writ petitioner on being aggrieved by the punishment imposed by the appellate authority, preferred revision petition before the Director General of Police,Tamil Nadu, Chennai,the third respondent. The same was duly considered by the third respondent and the punishment of withholding the increment for two years with cumulative effect has been modified to "postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect, which shall not affect his future increments. The said order passed in the review petition has been treated as a mercy petition by the Director General of Police dated 31.10.2015 vide proceedings in R.C.No.13647/AP-2(2)/2013, dated 31.10.2015.
2/5
3. In the counter, it is stated that, in view of the order passed by the third respondent modifying the punishment imposed by the appellate authority, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, nothing survives for further adjudication in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
4. This Court finds that the impugned order, which is the subject matter of the writ petition does not survive, in view of the subsequent order passed by the third respondent modifying the punishment. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open to him to challenge the order passed by the third respondent in the manner known to law.
5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infrcutuous. No costs.
26.09.2025 3/5
Index:yes/no Internet:yes Speaking order/non speaking order ari To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem.
3.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 4.
4.The Special Government Pleader, HighCourt,Madras. 4/5
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari 26.09.2025 5/5