AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner was working as Police Constable attached to the Manur Police Station in Tirunelveli District. The Petitioner has come forward to challenge the order, dated 27.05.2008 wherein by which, the second Respondent regulated the period of suspension undergone by the Petitioner from 23.03.2004 to 04.10.2007. By the impugned order, the period from 23.03.2004 to 29.08.2007 was treated as eligible leave including extra ordinary leave to the extent necessary and the period from 30.08.2007 to 04.10.2007 as compulsory wait. The grievance of the Petitioner was that the said order is against the provisions of law, since the Petitioner dismissal was converted into a reduction in pay to two stages for one year without cumulative effect and since he served the punishment, the reduction of salary for the said period was illegal. Further, in the criminal case registered against him, he got an acquittal.
Notice of motion was ordered on 09.09.2009. On notice from this Court, the second Respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 20.10.2009 justifying the impugned order. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, it is averred as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner submitted the mercy petition to the Director General of Police, Chennai on 14.03.2007 to cancel the punishment imposed to him. The Director General of Police, Chennai had considered his mercy petition and modified the punishment into reduction of time scale of pay by two stages for one year which shall not operate to postpone his future increments and issued orders to reinstated into service. As per the orders he had reported for duty on 05.10.2007. Subsequently, his suspension period from 23.03.2004 to 17.10.2005 and out of employment period from 18.10.2005 to 04.10.2007 undergone by the Petitioner was regulated as follows as per the rules laid in FR 54(b) and orders of the Director General of Police, Chennai in RC No. 62409/AP 2(1)2008, dated 10.04.2008 communicated in C. No. P2/12985/2008, dated 27.05.2009.
1) From 23.03.2004 to 29.08.2007 - Eligible Leave including Extra Ordinary Leave to the extent necessary
2) From 30.08.2007 to 04.10.2007 - Compulsory wait.
Aggrieved over the orders regarding settlement of suspension period the Petitioner filed the writ petition to direct the Respondent to treat the period of suspension from 23.03.2004 to 17.10.2005 as on duty and pass orders.
As averments made in ground (a)(b) and (c), it is submitted that the delinquent was issued a show-cause notice in C. No. P2/9316/2008, dated 21.02.2008 by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District as per the instructions of the Director General 4 of Police, Chennai for treating the suspension period and out of employment period as eligible leave extent necessary. The delinquent acknowledged show-cause notice and submitted his reply on 22.02.2008 requesting to treat the above period as duty. Though the criminal case launched against the Petitioner ended in acquitted, in the departmental action he was not exonerated of the charges since the violation of conduct rules was clearly indicated and hence the Petitioner was reinstated into service with modified penalty of "reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for one year which shall not operate to postpone his future increments". So the suspension period and out of employment period was regulated as eligible leave including extra ordinary leave to the extent necessary and compulsory wait with reference to the proceedings in D. Dis. No. 62409/AP 2(1)/2008, dated 10.04.2008 of the Director General of Police, Chennai. Hence, the contentions of the Petitioner are not acceptable.
The stand of the Respondents is in consonance with the FR-54(b). Therefore, the Petitioner having suffered punishment, cannot treat the period of suspension as one of on duty, since the subsistence allowance has already been paid to the Petitioner for the relevant period in terms of the FR. In the absence of the Petitioner pointing out any other rule in his favour, the impugned order is legal and valid. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.