SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/926258 |
Court | Chennai High Court |
Decided On | Feb-28-2012 |
Case Number | Writ Petition (MD).No.2075 of 2012 |
Judge | V.DHANAPALAN, J. |
Appellant | Malaichamy. |
Respondent | The Principal Secretary to Government. |
Appellant Advocate | Mr.B.Yashod Vardhan, Adv. |
Respondent Advocate | Mr.K.Mahendran, Adv. |
Prayer
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the third and fourth respondents to forward the proposal of cancellation of the deferred punishment in PR No.24/2005 and 42/2006 and consequently direct the second respondent to forward the representation dated 09.02.2012 to the first respondent to include the petitioner in the panel of Inspectors fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category I) for the year 2009-10.
ORDER
1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. In this petition, a mandamus has been sought for seeking to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to forward the proposal of cancellation of the deferred punishment in PR No.24/2005 and 42/2006 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to forward the representation of the petitioner, dated 09.02.2012 to the first respondent to include the petitioner in the panel of Inspectors fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category I) for the year 2009-10.
4. According to the petitioner, he was directly recruited for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1987 and thereafter he was promoted as Inspector of Police on 14.07.1998. He has also received a medal for gallantry from the Hon'ble Chief Minister for his bravery act at Madurai and during the year 2003, he has received more medals for his outstanding devotion of duty from the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. While so, he was suspended on 02.09.2004 for the delinquency occurred on October 2003 in connection with punishment Roll No.42/2006 and he was under suspension from 02.09.2004 to 13.07.2010, for which, final orders were passed on 30.09.2009. After the punishment order, there was a reduction by one rank to be spent on duty for three years by the third respondent. Subsequently, he made an appeal before the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) on 01.03.2010, for which, the Additional Director General of Police modified the earlier order by reduction in the time scale of pay for one stage for one year with cumulative effect on 19.06.2010 in this proceedings R.C.No.46035/AP2(3)/ 2010 and also observed the following:
It is pity that appellant, a Gallantry medal winner in 1997 and winner of the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Medal in 2003- had fallen into wrong company and covered himself with dishonour. Area fall for otherwise a hero of the police department at Madurai. It is vivid that he risked his life while taking on a bank of armed desperados at Madurai in 1997. looking at his misdemeanour vis-a- vis his readiness to give up his life at the alter of public service as displayed in 1997. Such people being a rare commodity in Tamil Nadu Police today. I take a lenient view and modify the punishment as Reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year with cumulative effect.
Subsequently, the above order has been further modified as a censure on a mercy petition made by the petitioner before the first respondent, Secretary to Government, Home Department and an order was passed in G.O.2(D) No.81 HOME (Polive W) Department dated 01.03.2011. The order of the first respondent reads as follows:
deferred punishment means - For minor offences and in case of more serious misconduct when at man has a previous good record, the punishment may be held in abeyance for a stated period ranging from three to six months at the end of which order of punishment will be cancelled if the officers conduct while on duty during the period or postponement has been good. If the offenders conduct is found to be unsatisfactory at any time during the period of postponement, the punishment may at once be confirmed. A deferred punishment will be entered in the defaulter sheet if confirmed but not otherwise.
5. In the above circumstances, as the period of deferred punishment was over by 13.07.2011 and the currency of punishment of censure was also commenced from 14.07.2010 for a further period of one year, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 24.05.2011 to the first respondent to include his name in the panel of Inspectors fit for promotion for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category I) for the year 2009-10 and pending consideration of the same, the petitioner is before this Court for the above direction.
6. This Court on 22.02.2012, directed the learned Special Government Pleader to take instructions. Accordingly, he has produced a copy of the written instruction from the fourth respondent in proceedings in C.No.F2/PR24/2005 dated 27.02.2012, which reads as follows:
Kind attention is invited to the reference cited. It is submitted that Tr.V.Malaichamy, Inspector of Police, formerly of Madurai City and Madurai District now serving in Idol wing, Chennai, was dealt with on a charge u/r 3(b) in PR 24/2005 of Madurai District (PR 29/2006 of Madurai City) and awarded the punishment of Reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year and the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increment by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City on 14.05.2006 and the same was reviewed by the Additional Director General of Police, Chennai, in his memo in C.No.2091176/AP2(3)/2006 dated 13.10.2006.
2.On his mercy petition to the Director General of Police, Chennai the above punishment was modified into that of Deferred censure for six months from the date of original order vide proceedings in C.No.040257/AP2(3)/2011 dated 22.05.2011. This order was served to the individual on 30.06.2011.
3.Consequently on the modified punishment ordered in PR No.24/2005 of Madurai District (PR 29/2006 of Madurai City) necessary proposal for the cancellation of above punishment has been sent to Chief Office in this office letter in even no dated 29.06.2011. But it was returned to this office raising certain remarks with instructions to obtain required particulars in connection with PR No.42/2006 u/r 3(b) against the above said Inspector of Police from the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and send the full pledged proposal for the cancellation of above said two deferred punishments awarded in PRs 24/2005 and 42/2006 u/r 3(b).
4.As called for from the Director General of Police, Chennai, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, has been requested to furnish the required particulars to this office on 17.02.2012 and his same is still awaited. On its receipt, necessary full-pledged proposal for the cancellation of the above said two deferred punishments awarded in both PRs will be sent to Chief Office soon.
7. Pursuant to the above communication, a written instruction given by the third respondent would disclose in paragraph No.8 that the deferred punishment period will be completed on 28.02.2012. In this connection, a proposal will be sent to Government through Chief Office, Chennai for cancellation of deferred punishment or otherwise, after obtaining the required particulars (viz. Leave availed during the deferred period and also whether he has come to any adverse notice during the above period from 01.03.2011 to 29.02.2012) from the unit officers, where he has served.
8. At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader requests time to file counter by the first respondent. However, the claim of the petitioner is only for forwarding the proposal from the authorities to the first respondent, the counter affidavit by the first respondent is not necessary at this stage.
9. In the light of the above instructions given by the learned Special Government Pleader that already the fourth respondent has sent a proposal to the first respondent and the same is now collected by the third respondent for forwarding it to the second respondent for consideration after the period as they have indicated on 28.02.2012, the learned Special Government Pleader requests that the first and second respondents may require a reasonable time to consider the petitioner's representation in the light of the above administrative process.
10. However, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents already prepared a panel for promotion and based on the proposal of the fourth respondent, a reasonable time limit may be granted to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner.
11. In the light of the above stated position, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to collect all the particulars and forward the proposal to the second respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and thereafter, the second respondent shall consider the petitioner's representation, dated 09.02.2012 on the above background circumstances and also the preparation of the panel for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The second respondent shall take a decision on the said representation and forward the same to the Government for further action within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for taking further action and consideration in respect of the petitioner's claim. No costs.