V.Kingsley v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

ORDER The petition has been filed to quash the impugned letter issued by the 1st Respondent in his Letter (D) No.1149 dated 04.09.2025 and consequently, direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages, attendant benefits and other monetary benefits to the petitioner.

¶2It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant in the office of Additional Director General of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Chennai. Later, he was posted as Assistant in the office of Greater Chennai Police. Since the petitioner was on his Medical Leave during the said transfer, he was unable to join duty on time in the third respondent Office. Though the third and fourth respondents are very well aware of the same, instead of declaring his probation, they passed a termination order to the petitioner on 15.10.2020. Therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the second respondent which was rejected by the second respondent. Page3 of 5

¶3Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a second revision petition before the first respondent. Without considering the petitioner's case, the first respondent rejected the same and passed the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶4Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶5A perusal of the impugned order shows that during the five years service, the petitioner has worked only for the period of one year and nine months and has, therefore, not been qualified for probation. Further, in the remaining days, the petitioner has been availing various kinds of leave. The petitioner's contention that the orders of extension was not issued before terminating him from service may not be correct, inasmuch as the petitioner had discharged his duties only for the period of one year and nine months in a truncated fashion by availing frequent leave of absence. That being the case, the petitioner cannot question the impugned order. The petitioner has not only been dismissed on the ground of absence, but, also on the ground that the prescribed accounts test had not been completed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, on conjoint reading of the above, it is clear that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, I see no reason to Page4 of 5 interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 08-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order ssa To

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home (Police -V) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director General Of Police Mylapore, Chennai-4.

3.The Commissioner of POlice Greater Chennai Police, Veppery, Chennai.

4.The Joint Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Greater Chennai Police, Thirumanagalam, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai. Page5 of 5

P.T.ASHA, J. ssa 08-04-2026

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA and WMP Nos.14031 and 14032 of 2026 V.Kingsley S/o. Viswanatha Rajadurai, Block No.2, Bhashiyam Navaratna Apartments, Subburayan Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home (Police -V) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Director General Of Police Mylapore, Chennai-4. 3. The Commissioner of POlice Greater Chennai Police, Veppery, Chennai. 4. The Joint Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Greater Chennai Police, Thirumanagalam, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire Page2 of 5 records relating to the impugned letter issued by the 1st Respondent in his Letter (D) No.1149 dated 04.09.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages, attendant benefits and other monetary benefits to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, SGP