High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 09 MAD CK 0067

N.Jeevanantham vs State Of Tamilnadu And Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 24 September 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.Dhandapani, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 17271 Of 2019 WMP. No. 21010 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 370 words

M.Dhandapani, J

1.

By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.

The petitioner was selected to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1997 through direct recruitment and appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 02.06.1997. Subsequently, he was promoted as Inspector of Police on 03.11.2006 and thereafter promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 22.10.2018. The petitioner has worked in the idol wing as Inspector of Police from 03.11.2006 to 31.07.2011 and then repatriated from idol wing to Chennai Police on 31.07.2011. During that time, the petitioner was summoned by the Office of the Inspector of Police, Idol Wing-CID, with regard to Cr.No.114/2005, on the file of Pavaloor Police Station, Tirunelveli. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared on 09.09.2019 and his statements were recorded. According to the petitioner, he was forced to give statements as against some officials in the Idol wing. Since he was refused to give the same, he was arrested and released on bail on 29.12.2019. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent did not permit the petitioner to join duty. In this regard, the petitioner has made several representations to the concerned authority, till date no orders have been passed. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3.

Heard Mr.R.Singaravelu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.A.Srijayanthy, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without going into the merits of the case, it would suffice if a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.10.2017 and pass orders, within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

5.

The learned Additional Government Pleader conceded to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.

Thus, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.10.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7.

With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.