IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P. NO.35224 OF 2006 M.Ganapathy .. Petitioner Versus 1.Commissioner of Police Chennai 8. 2.Deputy Inspector General of Police Training, Chennai 83. .. Respondents PRAYER : This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.7666 of 1998 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to direct the respondents to treat the duty of suspension period from 25.10.1997 to 07.01.1998 as duty for all purposes. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi For Respondents : Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam Government Advocate O R D E R
The Original Application in O.A.No.7666 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.
2.The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police. While he was serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Police Training College, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, he was placed under suspension by the second respondent, by an order dated 25.10.1997.
3.The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.8611 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to quash the aforesaid suspension order dated 25.10.1997 of the second respondent. The Original Application was admitted on 28.10.1997.
4.While so, the Director General of Police, Chennai passed an order dated 07.01.1998 releasing the petitioner from suspension without prejudice to the departmental proceedings pending against him. It is stated that no charge memo was issued thereafter. Since the period of suspension was not regularised, he was not able to draw further increment.
5.Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.7666 of 1998 (W.P.No.35224 of 2006) praying for a direction to the respondents to treat the suspension period from 25.10.1997 to 07.01.1998 as duty for all purposes.
6.Heard Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
7.The respondents has not filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations.
8.When the matter came up on 09.10.2009, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to file a status report. When the matter is listed today, the learned Government Advocate has produced a status report dated 14.10.2009 and the same is extracted here-under:
“Sub: Chennai Traffic Police W.P.No. / 06 (OA.No.7666/98) filed by M.Ganapathy, Sub Inspr. Of Police, Traffic Request adjournment for two weeks.
Ref: Your letter No. dated Nil dt. 12.10.09 regarding 2) O.A.7666/98 filed by Tr.M.Ganapathy, SI. Of Police (Armed Reserve)
******
As the records pertaining to yester years are not readily traceable to find out the present position of the case due to efflux of time, I request that an adjournment for two weeks may please be sought for in order to ascertain the present location of the applicant and the regularization of the suspension period.”
9.In the absence of counter affidavit and also in view of the statement made in the status report as extracted above, I have no other option except to issue a direction to the respondents to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes.
10.In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.
TK
To
1.Commissioner of Police
Chennai 8.
2.Deputy Inspector General of Police
Training,
Chennai 83