S. Saravanan Vs. the Commandant T.N. Special Police Vi Battalion,

S. Saravanan vs The Commandant T.N. Special Police Vi Battalion,; the Inspector of Police, Armed Police And; the Dir

Disposition Petition allowed Court Chennai Decided Mar 26, 2010

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/848436

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/848436
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: R. Subbiah, J.
Decided On: Mar 26, 2010
Case Number: W.P. No. 16292 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of th...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Saravanan

Advocate Venkataramani, Sr. Counsel for; M. Muthappan, Adv.

Respondent

The Commandant T.N. Special Police Vi Battalion,; the Inspector of Police, Armed Police And; the Dir

Advocate V. Vishwanathan, Additional Government Pleader

Excerpt

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....the impugned order passed by the respondents are liable to be quashed.4. per contra, the learned additional government pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that all the proceedings were duly served on the father of the petitioner at his residence at madurai. under such circumstances, at this length of time, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be entertained.5. heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.6. it is an admitted fact that the desertion notice and subsequent proceedings of charge memo were not served on the petitioner and it was served only on the petitioner's father who is an illiterate person and who could not communicate the same to the petitioner. hence, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, i am of the opinion that proper opportunity should be given to the petitioner to put forth his explanation. under such circumstances, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the first respondent for fresh enquiry after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. accordingly, the impugned order passed by the first respondent in pr. no. 8/2007 dated 28.08.2007 and confirmed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in c. no. a2/ap1.17/2007 dated 07.12.2007 and rc no. 241200/ap.3(1) /2007 dated 15.05.2008 respectively are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to conduct fresh enquiry by affording opportunity to the petitioner. the entire exercise shall be completed by the first respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.7. in the above terms, the writ petition is allowed. no costs. consequently, connected m.p. is closed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R. Subbiah, J.

1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in PR. No. 8/2007 dated 28.08.2007 and confirmed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in C. No. A2/AP1.17/2007 dated 07.12.2007 and RC No. 241200/AP.3(1) /2007 dated 15.05.2008 respectively and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner entered the service as a directly recruited Police Constable through a selection conducted by Uniformed Service Recruitment Board and appointed to service on 12.12.2003. After institutional training, the petitioner was directed to serve in the Tamil Nadu Special Police VI Battalion, E. Company, Madurai. The petitioner entered medical leave due to ill health from 04.12.2006 to 18.12.2006 and due to non-recovery from the illness, the petitioner needed further treatment and hence he extended his leave for another 40 days as per the advice of the doctor from 19.12.2006 to 29.01.2007. As he could not recover from illness, he had been directed to go to Madras to take treatment by the doctors at First med Apollo Hospitals, Chennai. While, the petitioner was undergoing treatment in the hospital, due to non-reporting for duty on 29.01.2007, he was declared as 'deserted' and the desertion notice was sent to him. As he was not available in Madurai and undergoing treatment at Madras, the notice was served on his father who is an illiterate and who could not communicate the same to the petitioner. Since he was continuously undergoing treatment at Madras, none of the proceedings issued by the disciplinary authority viz., the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police VI Battalion were served on him. It seems that those documents have been served on his parents who could not convey the same to him. After recovery from illness, he came to know that he was removed from service by the orders of the first respondent in PR. No. 8/2007 on 28.08.2007. On coming to know about his removal from service, immediately, he filed an appeal to the second respondent. The said appeal was rejected by the second respondent, confirming the order passed by the first respondent by an order dated 07.12.2007. After full recovery from the illness, when the petitioner made an appeal to the third respondent on 13.12.2007, the third respondent had also dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that none of the proceedings was served on the petitioner at the relevant point of time, since the petitioner was taking treatment at Madras, but all the proceedings were served only to the father of the petitioner who is an illiterate person. Therefore, the father of the petitioner could not communicate the same to the petitioner. Since the orders were passed without affording opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his explanation, the impugned order passed by the respondents are liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that all the proceedings were duly served on the father of the petitioner at his residence at Madurai. Under such circumstances, at this length of time, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be entertained.

5. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. It is an admitted fact that the desertion notice and subsequent proceedings of charge memo were not served on the petitioner and it was served only on the petitioner's father who is an illiterate person and who could not communicate the same to the petitioner. Hence, considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that proper opportunity should be given to the petitioner to put forth his explanation. Under such circumstances, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the first respondent for fresh enquiry after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the first respondent in PR. No. 8/2007 dated 28.08.2007 and confirmed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in C. No. A2/AP1.17/2007 dated 07.12.2007 and RC No. 241200/AP.3(1) /2007 dated 15.05.2008 respectively are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to conduct fresh enquiry by affording opportunity to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed by the first respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. In the above terms, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2010 Same Parties S. Saravanan vs The Commandant T.N. Special Police Vi Battali... Same Subject Service Same Judge R. Subbiah, J.

Service