Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.K.PANNEERSELVAM versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.K.Panneerselvam v. Superintendent of Police - W.P. No.4636 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 2895 (5 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED : 05/09/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM

W.P. No.4636 of 2005

and

WPMP. No.17350 of 2006

A.K.Panneerselvam

Grade~I Police Constable 1068

Anamalai Police Station

Pollachi Taluk

Coimbatore District .. Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police

District Police Office

Coimbatore District

Coimbatore 18.

2. The Director General of Police

Chennai 4. .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent herein passed in his Na.Ka.No.J2/P.R.207/99 dated 31.12.99 and the order passed by the second respondent herein in Rc.No.291114/AP I(1)/2003 dated 27.5.2004 and quash the same with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : M/s.Sudha Ravi Associates For Respondents : Mr.I.Paranthaman, Additional Government Pleader ORDER



Challenge is made to an order of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.No.J2/P.R.207/99 dated 31.12.1999 and also the orders passed by the second respondent dated 27.5.2004. The petitioner has brought forth this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari.

2.Affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3.Concededly, when the petitioner was working as a Grade I Constable in Pollachi (East) Police Station from 8.6.1998, certain allegations were made against him along with two others. On 20.11.1999, a charge memo was served upon him to the effect that in violation of the instructions of the superiors, he collected Deepavali Inam from the members of the public. Following the enquiry, the petitioner and the two others were found liable as per the charges and imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition, would submit that the punishment was entered pursuant to the enquiry where the principles of natural justice were not strictly followed; that after the imposition of punishment on two other Constables, they filed O.A.Nos.7477/2001 and 4118/2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which were allowed quashing the punishments; that the respondents have also cancelled the punishments on 12.4.2002, by implementing the orders of the Tribunal; that in the instant case, the petitioner was also found equally liable along with the two others pursuant to the charge memo; that the reason for the petitioner not going for cancellation of the punishment imposed on him was that he has not preferred an application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal; and that merely on that ground, he could not be denied the relief of cancellation of the punishment imposed on him.

5.The Court heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

6.After hearing the learned Counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered opinion that the imposition of punishment on him has got to be necessarily quashed. It is not in controversy that along with the petitioner, who was a Grade-I Constable, two others were also charged. On enquiry, all the three were found guilty, and the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect was imposed. Two others have preferred applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.7477/2001 and 4118/2003. Admittedly, both these applications were allowed, and the punishments imposed on them, were quashed pursuant to which the department has also cancelled the punishment by an order dated 12.4.2002; but, not done in the instant case. Merely because the petitioner has not moved the Tribunal which was done by the other two Constables, there need not be a discrimination in the opinion of this Court, as regards this petitioner. Under the circumstances, the benefit that accrued to others in those two applications before the Tribunal where the punishments were quashed, could also be well applied to him since admittedly, he was on the same footing along with the two other constables. In such circumstances, the punishment imposed on the petitioner, is also quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed. nsv/

To:

1. The Superintendent of Police

District Police Office

Coimbatore District

Coimbatore 18.

2. The Director General of Police

Chennai 4.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.