E.Paulraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu

ORDER This writ petition is filed for the following relief: "To call for the records of the 4th respondent in his proceeding in C.No.C1/ 2273/ 2013 dated 09.07.2013 and proceedings of the 3rd respondent in R.Dis.No.26285/ AP2

(1)/ 2014 dated 18.05.2016 and proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O.(D).No.292, Home (POL IV) Department dated 22.03.2018 and quash the same and Consequently direct the respondents to restore the 3 increments and settle Page3 of 8 the consequential benefits with 6 percent interest to the petitioner."

¶2The petitioner was appointed as a Sub Inspector of Police in the Tamil Nadu Police Department on 01.03.1996. He is now working as an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai.

¶3The petitioner would submit that when he was working as Inspector of Police at Sathankulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District, he transferred one David Christuraj, Head Constable, Staff No.781 from Sathankulam Police Station to the nearby Police Station. Aggrieved by the transfer, the said David Christuraj, frequently quarrelled with the petitioner in the colony. Hence, the petitioner sent a report to the Inspector of Police, Special Branch on 25.09.2009 and also to the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, on 28.08.2009.

¶4Thereafter, the said David Christuraj gave a complaint against the petitioner to his higher officials linking the petitioner with one Saroja who is from his native place with malafide intention. Hence, the petitioner was kept under suspension by the 4th respondent vide his proceedings dated Page4 of 8

23.01.2010. It is submitted that 3 charges were framed against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 24.03.2010, for which the petitioner sent his reply on 07.04.2010.

¶5Since the petitioner's request for cancellation of charges were not considered, he approached the Madurai Bench of this Court by filing W.P(MD).No.2811 of 2010 and this Court was pleased to pass orders on

16.07.2010 to consider his representation dated 30.01.2010. The report given by the Additional Superintendent of Police was accepted by the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, as it is and the same was sent to the 4th respondent and 4th respondent imposed a punishment vide his proceedings dated 18.05.2011.

¶6The petitioner preferred a Statutory Appeal vide letter dated

07.07.2011 to the 3rd respondent. He modified the order vide his proceedings dated 30.01.2013 and the 4th respondent modified the punishment vide his proceedings 09.07.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the 3rd respondent and the same was rejected by order dated 18.05.2016. Challenging the rejection order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the Page5 of 8 same was also rejected by the order dated 22.03.2018.

¶7Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶8Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records.

¶9A perusal of the records would show that the impugned order has been passed as early as on 22.03.2018. The disciplinary authority had imposed punishment of postponement of increment for 3 years which operate to postpone his future increments. This order was passed on

09.07.2013. Against the above order, the petitioner had preferred a review petition to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent by order dated

18.05.2016 had confirmed the punishment.

¶10The petitioner had moved the mercy petition to the Government against the said order and the 1st respondent by its order dated 22.03.2018 had also proceeded to confirm the order passed by the 4th respondent. The punishment which has been imposed as early as in the year 2013 has worked itself out. Page6 of 8

¶11That apart, the petitioner has filed this writ petition 8 years after his mercy petition had been rejected by the 1st respondent and no satisfactory reasons have been stated for the said delay. The reasons given about the mental agony and Covid -19 is totally baseless since as on the date of the order of the 1st respondent, the Covid - 19 had not even set in.

¶12Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 18-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order KAN Page7 of 8 To

¶1The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Home Secretary to Government, Police Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-009.

¶2The Director General of Police O/o. Director General of Police, No.601, Dr.Radhakrishan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-04.

¶3The Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), O/o. Director General of Police, No.601, Dr.Radhakrishan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-04.

¶4The Deputy Inspector General of Police O/o. Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli. Page8 of 8

P.T.ASHA, J. KAN 18-03-2026

Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA & WMP.No. 11511 of 2026 E.Paulraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Home Secretary to Government, Police Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-009. 2. The Director General of Police O/o. Director General of Police, No.601, Dr.Radhakrishan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-04. 3. The Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), O/o. Director General of Police, No.601, Dr.Radhakrishan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-04. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police O/o. Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli. ..Respondent(s) Page2 of 8 Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of certiorarified to call for the records of the 4th respondent in his proceeding in C.No.C1/ 2273/ 2013 dated 09.07.2013 and proceedings of the 3rd respondent in R.Dis.No.26285/ AP2 (1)/ 2014 dated 18.05.2016 and proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O. (D).No.292, Home (POL IV) Department dated 22.03.2018 and quash the same and Consequently direct the respondents to restore the 3 increments and settle the consequential benefits with 6 percent interest to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s): D.Soundar Raj For Respondent(s): Mr. T.Chandrasekaran Standing Counsel