V.Ramachandran v. The Director General Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :18.07.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.12497 of 2016 V.Ramachandran ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Chennai.

2.The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 23.05.2016 and thereby release the service benefits to him by deducting the suspension period ie., 28.03.2007 F.N to 23.09.2007 A.N from his medical leave period in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Rajaram For Respondents ... Mrs.S.Bharathi, Government Advocate

O R D E R

The petitioner Mr.V.Ramachandran, while serving as Inspector of Police, Manamelkudi Police Station, Pudukottai District, he was placed under suspension from 28.03.2007 F.N to 23.09.2007 A.N. Subsequently, the dispute raised under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal Rules), ended in 'censure' by an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, Villupuram in PR.No.23/10 u/r 3(b) by awarding a punishment of 'censure' vide order, dated 21.07.2010. Since, in the meanwhile the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, Villupuram, allowed him to retire from service, without prejudice to the departmental action pending https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

review of the punishment of 'censure' awarded against him. Subsequently, the punishment was reviewed and accepted by the Government in letter No.8972/L&O-E/2010-2, dated 19.08.2013. As against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent on 21.09.2015. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner has made a representation on 23.05.2016 requesting the respondents to treat the suspension period from 28.03.2007 F.N to 23.09.2007 A.N as duty period. Since, the same was not considered so far, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

2. But, Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents on instructions would submit that the request of the petitioner to consider the suspension period as duty period was refused by the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy vide order in C.No.K1/12265/2016, dated 25.05.2016.

3. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. When the petitioner suffered a punishment of 'censure' by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, Villupuram, vide order dated 21.07.2010, the petitioner filed an appeal with a delay of five years ie., on 21.09.2015 before the Director General of Police, Chennai. Be that as it may, when the request of the petitioner to treat the suspension period as duty period was already refused by the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy, vide order dated 25.05.2016, this Court is not inclined to give any direction as sought for by the petitioner to consider his representation, dated 23.05.2016.

5. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

1.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Chennai.

2.The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai,Pudukottai District.

+1cc to Mr.A.RAJARAM,Advocate Sr.No.37371 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.37577 PM AA/SKS-RR/27.07.2016/2p-6c W.P.(MD)No.12497 of 2016 18.07.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/