AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—With the consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
The petitioner, while serving as Head Constable in Thalaiyuthu Police Station, Tirunelveli, was proceeded with departmentally, along with three others, namely, Balamurugan, Rajagopal and Balakrishnan, in connection with the selling of pirated CDs. After enquiry, the 4th respondent passed final orders on 12.01.2010 imposing the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years which shall operate to postpone future increment in respect of Balamurugan and in respect of the petitioner and two others, punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by three stages for three years which shall not operate to postpone their future increment was imposed. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent rejected the appeal by order dated 19.04.2010, as against which, the petitioner preferred a review petition to the 2nd respondent.
In the meantime, the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Tirunelveli, acquitted the accused in C.C. No. 188 of 2009 relating to the selling of pirated CDs, by judgment dated 07.12.2010. The petitioner and the others were not accused in the said criminal case though disciplinary proceedings initiated related to selling of pirated CDs.
On considering the review petition filed by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent modified the punishment into one of reduction in pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect by order dated 14.03.2011. Similar orders were also passed in respect of Balamurugan and Balakrishnan. However, Head Constable Rajagopal, did not file any review petition and therefore, his punishment was not modified.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition on 25.05.2011 to the 1st respondent to set aside the punishment. While so, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 06.07.2012, set aside the punishment imposed on Rajagopal, in entirety, on a review preferred by him.
In view of the aforesaid development, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 1st respondent on 01.03.2013. However, the 1st respondent rejected the said representation by order dated 01.08.2013. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the 1st respondent.
Heard both sides.
It is the case of the petitioner that when he had made a specific plea in paragraph No. 10 of his representation dated 01.03.2013 that the punishment imposed on Rajagopal was set aside, in entirety and therefore, similar treatment may be extended to him, the same was not considered by the 1st respondent, while passing the impugned order on 01.08.2013. Paragraph No. 10 of the representation of the petitioner dated 01.03.2013 is extracted hereunder:
"10. I submit that HC 1746 Rajagopal of Manur PS preferred Revision Petition to the DG, Tamil Nadu Police on the basis of the above judgment. The Hon''ble Director General of Police set aside the punishment awarded against him vide proceedings No. 115968/AP2(1) dated 06.07.2012. My case is also similar nature to the HC 1746 Rajagopal of Manu PS and therefore, I submitted a petition to the Secretariat, Tamil Nadu requesting to set aside the punishment imposed upon me. But, I have not received any reply from your Secretariat even after lapse of many months. Such delay will affect my service career."
I have perused the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has not properly considered the order of the Director General of Police dated 06.07.2012 setting aside the punishment imposed, in entirety, in the case of Rajagopal. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. However, I am not inclined to pass an order setting aside the punishment imposed. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought remand of the matter to the 2nd respondent for passing appropriate orders, with regard to the punishment imposed, based on the order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent , in the case of Rajagopal.
Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the 2nd respondent, citing the order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent, in the case of Rajagopal. On receipt of such representation, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass orders on the same, within a period of 8 weeks thereafter, in terms of the order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the 1st respondent, in respect of Rajagopal. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.