AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st Respondent, in his proceedings No.
784/2010 Rc. No. F1/302/23805/2010, dated 20.09.2010, whereby an order was made to recover a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from his salary as
compensation paid to the deceased family, on the ground that the Petitioner was not issued with any notice before the impugned recovery order
was passed.
The Petitioner suffered a departmental proceedings for having caused custodial death to a person, namely, Murugan, and as a result of the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,
1955, the Petitioner was imposed with a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay from Rs. 10,440/- to Rs. 9,540/- for three years with
cumulative effect by order dated 13.07.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd Respondent,
which is also pending now. Though the Petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery order on the ground of violation of principles of natural
justice for having not issued any prior notice, he has contended that even before his statutory appeal, which is filed before the 2nd Respondent, is
disposed of, the impugned order seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, that too, without issuing any prior notice, is liable to set aside and on
that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner along with another police officer was
found guilty of having custodial death of Murugan, for which, he has also imposed with a punishment of reduction in time scale of pay from Rs.
10,440/- to Rs. 9,540/- for three years with cumulative effect by order dated 13.07.2010. The affected family of the deceased Murugan has filed
their complaint before the National Human Rights Commission. After entertaining the complaint filed by the wife of the said Murugan, a notice was
issued to the Petitioner. In view of the notice issued by the National Human Rights Commission, the State Government has thought fit to recover a
sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from both the police officers. As a part of Rs. 1,00,000/-which was already paid by the State Government, a notice was
issued to the Petitioner seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 40,000/- by way of 20 instalments. Therefore, it was contended that the Petitioner need
not be served with any prior notice.
Be that as it may, even though the Respondents are entitled to recover the above mentioned amount, without disposing of the statutory appeal
filed by the Petitioner against the reduction in time scale of pay from Rs. 10,440/- to Rs. 9,540/- for three years with cumulative effect as per the
order dated 13.07.2010, the Respondent, in my considered view, should not have issued the impugned order of recovery, that too, without putting
the Petitioner on notice.
In that view of the matter, to meet the ends of justice, since the State Government has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the deceased
family, I direct the Respondents to treat the impugned order as show cause notice issued to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner is directed to
give explanation to the impugned show cause with in a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After the receipt of the
explanation from the Petitioner, the Respondents shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Further, the Respondents are directed to
refund the entire amount, till day recovered from the Petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Recovery, if any, can be made only after his appeal is disposed of.
With the above direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is closed.