K.Palaniselvam, v. The Superintendent of Police,

O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents.

¶2The petitioner herein, who was awarded with TNCM's Police Medal for Gallantry and TNCM's Constabulary Medal-2021, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings thereafter and was imposed with a punishment of postponement of one increment for one year without cumulative effect, vide proceedings dated 30.11.2023. Consequent upon the said punishment, the medals that were awarded to the petitioner, were sought to be withdrawn through the impugned proceedings.

¶3The impugned action is purportedly in terms of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.71, Home (S.C.) Department, dated 12.01.1982. In terms of the said Government Order, the medals awarded thereunder are liable to be forfeited if the holder is found guilty of disloyalty, incurs any punishment, and comes to notice for deterioration in the standard of work. In such cases, the payment of the monthly allowance shall also be discontinued. If the said Government is the basis for issuing the impugned proceedings, the withdrawal of the medals awarded to the petitioner cannot be automatic, but, the same is only in case if the employee acquires any punishment and then it comes to the notice of the competent authority that there is deterioration in the standard of work of the concerned employee.

¶4From the impugned proceedings, there is nothing to indicate that there is any deterioration in the standard of the petitioner's work. But, no doubt, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment. Unless both the requirements are fulfilled as required under Paragraph No.12 of the said Government Order, the impugned proceedings ought not to have been issued in a mechanical manner, that too without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Perhaps, if any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, he would have put forth his contentions before the authority concerned. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained for want of compliance of the principles of natural justice.

¶5Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 01.06.2026, issued by the first respondent, is hereby quashed leaving it open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

07.07.2026 NCC : Index : Internet :

krk To:

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural Sub Division, Dindigul. MUMMINENI-SUDHEER-KUMAR,-J. krk W.P.(MD)-No.18867-of-2026 and W.M.P.(MD)-Nos.13956-&-13957-of-2026

07.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.13956 & 13957 of 2026 K.Palaniselvam ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Superintendent of Police Dindigul District Dindigul 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Dindigul Rural Sub Division Dindigul ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in D.O.No.745/2026, C.No.F1/PR.20/2023, u/r 3(b) dated 01.06.2026 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.C.Jeganathan Counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu