{"id":123702,"date":"2005-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005"},"modified":"2014-11-14T10:02:09","modified_gmt":"2014-11-14T04:32:09","slug":"r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005","title":{"rendered":"R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 16\/02\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA         \nAND  \nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR             \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.17263 OF 2004     \nand \nWPMP.No.35852 OF 2004     \n\n\nR. Krisnaswamy  \nS\/o. Ramaswamy Thevar           ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Director General of Police,\n   Chennai 4.\n\n2. The Registrar,\n   Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,\n   Chennai Bench,\n   Chennai 600 104.                     ..  Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining\nto  the  order  dated 12.5.2004 in O.A.No.1846\/2000, on the file of Tamil Nadu\nAdministrative Tribunal and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioners        :  Mr.K.  Venkataramani\n\n^For Respondent-1       :  Mr.S.  Gomathinayagam\n                        Special Govt.  Pleader\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
P.K.  MISRA, J <\/p>\n
        The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-
\n        The petitioner entered service as Police Constable Grade  II  and  was
\nsubsequently promoted  as Police Constable Grade I in the year 1992.  While he
\nwas so functioning as Grade I Police Constable, on the basis  of  a  complaint
\nfiled by one Murugesan regarding assault by the present petitioner, a case was
\nregistered  by  the  Inspector  of  Police  and the matter was referred to the
\nRevenue Divisional Officer.  On the basis  of  the  findings  of  the  R.D.O.,
\ndepartmental  enquiry  was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 3(b) of
\nTamil Nadu Police Subordinate  Service  (Discipline  &  Appeal)  Rules.    The
\npetitioner denied  the  charges.  The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Flower
\nBazaar, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.  The Enquiry Officer  found  the
\ndelinquency  of  the  petitioner  and  submitted  a report to the disciplinary
\nauthority.  The disciplinary authority, namely,  the  Deputy  Commissioner  of
\nPolice,  accepting  the findings of the enquiry officer awarded the punishment
\nof reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period  of  one  year
\nwithout cumulative  effect  as  per  order  dated  10.8.1 999.  The petitioner
\nclaims that the punishment was reviewed by  the  Commissioner  of  Police  who
\nagreeing  with  the  findings  of  the  disciplinary authority and the enquiry
\nofficer, confirmed the order of punishment.  Thereafter, the Director  General
\nof Police, in exercise of his suo motu power of review, came to the conclusion
\nthat the punishment awarded was grossly inadequate compared to the seriousness
\nof  charge of assault and awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement with
\nimmediate effect by order dated 25.1.2000.  The said order was communicated on
\n10.2.2000.  Thereafter the petitioner filed O.A.No.1846 of 2  000  before  the
\nTamil Nadu  Administrative Tribunal.  At the time of entertaining the Original
\nApplication, an interim order of stay was passed and by virtue of such  order,
\nthe  petitioner  was  reinstated in service and continued to serve in the said
\ncapacity.  Ultimately, the  Original  Application  was  heard  on  merits  and
\ndismissed by  order  dated  1  2.5.2004.   This order of the Tribunal is under
\nchallenge in the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   While  entertaining  the  writ  petition,  initially,  an
\ninterim order of stay was passed and subsequently such stay has been vacated.\n<\/p>\n
                3.    Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  has  raised  two
\ncontentions.  The first  contention  is  to  the  effect  that  the  order  of
\npunishment  passed  by  the  disciplinary authority was reviewed by the higher
\nauthority and on such review, the order of punishment was found to  be  proper
\nand  therefore,  there  was  no  scope  for  a  second  review  in view of the
\nprovisions contained  in  Rule  15-A(4)  of  the  TNPSS  (D&A)  Rules.     The
\nalternative  contention  of the petitioner is to the effect that even assuming
\nthat second  review  is  permissible  in  law,  the  Reviewing  Authority  has
\narbitrarily reviewed the order of punishment and has imposed the punishment of
\ncompulsory  retirement,  which  is  grossly  disproportionate to the nature of
\ndelinquency.  In this context, it has been submitted by  the  learned  counsel
\nfor  the  petitioner  that  if  the  original  punishment  of  stoppage of one
\nincrement was found to be inadequate, any other suitable punishment, short  of
\ncompulsory retirement, could have been imposed.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that
\nthe  question  now  raised by the petitioner regarding inapplicability of Rule
\n15-A(4) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules had not been raised before the Tribunal  as  such
\nand cannot  be  permitted to be raised.  It is also submitted that at any rate
\nthe provisions contained in Rule 15-A(4) do not de-bar higher authorities from
\ninvoking the review power.  It has been submitted by him that  the  conclusion
\nof  the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority that the petitioner had
\ncaused a grievous hurt to a private citizen without  any  justifiable  reason,
\ncalls  for  proper  disciplinary  action  and the order passed by the Director
\nGeneral of Police cannot be said to be arbitrary.  He has submitted  that  all
\nthe  relevant  aspects  had been considered by the Tribunal and the High Court
\ncannot sit as an appellate authority over the order passed by the Tribunal and
\nat any rate  the  punishment  imposed  also  cannot  be  said  to  be  grossly
\ndisproportionate so as to warrant any interference.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   It  is  of course true that a perusal of the order of the
\nTribunal does not reflect any submission relating to the scope of Rule  15-A(4
\n) of  TNPSS  (D&A)  Rules.    However, we find that a specific ground had been
\ntaken by the petitioner as ground (a) in the Original Application filed before
\nthe Tribunal and since the question raised is more or less a question  of  law
\ndepending upon Rule 15-A, we feel inclined to consider such aspect.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  The provisions contained in Rule 15-A are as follows :-
\n        15-A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules–\n<\/p>\n
        (i) the State Government; or\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) the Head of the Department directly under the State Government in
\nthe  case of a Government Servant in a department or office, under the control
\nof such Head of the Department; or\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) the appellate authority;\n<\/p>\n
        within six months from the date of the order proposed to be  reviewed;
\nor\n<\/p>\n
        (iv)  any  other  authority,  specified  in  this  behalf by the State
\nGovernment by a general or special order, and  within  such  time  as  may  be
\nprescribed  in such general or special order may, at any time, either on their
\nor its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of any inquiry and review
\nany order made under the se rules, after  consultation  with  the  Tamil  Nadu
\nPublic Service Commission, where such consultation if necessary and may, —\n<\/p>\n
        (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or\n<\/p>\n
        (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set-aside the penalty imposed by the
\norder, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or\n<\/p>\n
        (c)  remit  the  case  to the authority which made the order or to any
\nother authority, directing such authority to make such further inquiry  as  it
\nmay consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or\n<\/p>\n
        (d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made
\nby  any  reviewing  authority unless the Government servant concerned has been
\ngiven a reasonable opportunity of making representation  against  the  penalty
\nproposed.   Where  it  is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in
\nclauses (d), (e) (3)(h) (i) and (j) of  Rule  2  or  to  enhance  the  penalty
\nimposed  by  the order sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified
\nin those clauses, no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry  in
\nthe  manner  laid down in sub-rule (b) of Rule 3 and after giving a reasonable
\nopportunity to the Government servant concerned of showing cause  against  the
\npenalty  proposed  on the evidence adduced during the inquiry and except after
\nconsultation with the Tamil Nadu  Public  Service  Commission,  where  such  a
\nconsultation is necessary :\n<\/p>\n
        Provided  further  that  no  power of review shall be exercised by the
\nHead of the Department, unless–\n<\/p>\n
        (i) the authority which made the order in appeal; or\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) the authority to which an appeal would be, where  no  appeal  has
\nbeen preferred, is subordinate to him.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) No proceeding for review shall be commenced until after —\n<\/p>\n
        (i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal; or\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  the  disposal  of  the  appeal,  where  any such appeal has been
\npreferred;\n<\/p>\n
        (3) An application for review shall be dealt with in the  same  manner
\nas if it were an appeal under these rules;\n<\/p>\n
        (4)  No  application  for  review shall be preferred more than once in
\nrespect of the same order:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that members of the constabulary (Police Constables and  Head
\nConstables)  shall  be  eligible  to make one representation to the Government
\nagainst orders of dismissal or removal from service after exhausting the right
\nof appeal;\n<\/p>\n
        Provided further that no application for review shall be  entertained,
\nif it has not been made within a period of six months from the date of receipt
\nof the order on which such application for review is prescribed.<\/p>\n
                7.   The  contention  of  the petitioner is to the effect that
\npower of review has been given in alternative to various authorities and  once
\nany such power of review is exercised by such authority, the other authorities
\nare precluded  from  further  reviewing  the  matter.    Even  though  such  a
\ncontention prima  facie  appears  to  be  attractive,  in  our  opinion,  such
\ncontention is unacceptable.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  An analysis of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that
\nthe  power  of  review  has been given to the State Government under Rule 15(1
\n)(i) or the Head of the Department or the Appellate  Authority  or  any  other
\nauthority specified  in  this  behalf  by the State Government.  So far as the
\nappellate authority is concerned, as contemplated under Rule 15-A(1)(iii) such
\npower is to be exercised within six months from the date of order proposed  to
\nbe reviewed.   So far as any other specified authority contemplated under Rule
\n15-A(1)(iv) is concerned, such power is to be exercised within time as may  be
\nprescribed,  and  so  far as the State Government or Head of the Department is
\nconcerned, such power can be exercised at any time.  This power of review  can
\nbe  exercised  by the concerned authority on its own motion, i.e., suo motu or
\notherwise.  In other words, such power of review can also be exercised on  the
\nbasis of an application, which is contemplated in Rule 15-A(3) .  If the power
\nis exercised obviously suo motu, there is no filing of any application.  Under
\nRule  15-A(4),  no application for review shall be preferred more than once in
\nrespect of the same order.  Review can be made in respect of  any  order  made
\nunder these  Rules.   So far as the Head of the Department is concerned, it is
\ncontemplated that he shall not have the power of review unless  the  appellate
\nauthority is  subordinate  to  him.  A careful analysis makes it clear that so
\nfar as suo motu power is concerned, there is no  prohibition  for  the  higher
\nauthority to  issue  suo motu review proceedings.  The only embargo is that if
\nthe review is based on any application, such applicant cannot have  a  further
\nright of filing further application for review.\n<\/p>\n
                9.    For  clarification,  we  may  refer  to  the  provisions
\ncontained in Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.  giving the power of revision to the
\nSessions Judge as well as the High Court.  There is a specific prohibition  in
\nSection  397  (3)  indicating  that  if  a power of revision is exercised by a
\nparticular revisional  authority  and  the  order  is  confirmed,  no  further
\nrevision would  be  maintainable.  However, there is no such indication in the
\npresent Rule 15.  On the other hand, a careful reading of  Rule  15  indicates
\nthat  if power of review is exercised by an authority, the higher authority is
\nnot precluded from exercising suo motu power of review.  If the contention  of
\nthe  learned counsel for the petitioner would be accepted, the jurisdiction of
\nthe  higher  authorities  would  be  unduly  circumscribed  and  any  inferior
\nauthority  contemplated  under Rule 15-A may foreclose the discretionary power
\nof review of a higher authority by exercising such review power himself.    We
\nare therefore unable to accept such contention.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   Moreover,  a  perusal  of  the  file  does  not indicate
\nregarding any categorical order of the Commissioner in the purported  exercise
\nof power  under  Rule  15-A.  It merely seems that the file had passed through
\nthe Commissioner in a routine administrative manner and  the  Commissioner  of
\nPolice seems to have agreed with the conclusion of the enquiry officer and the
\ndisciplinary  authority  and  thereafter, the file was forwarded to the higher
\nauthority, namely the Director General  of  Police.    In  other  words,  mere
\nadministrative  notes  have been furnished and by no stretch of imagination it
\ncan be said that an order has been passed confirming the order  of  punishment
\nin exercise of power under Rule 15-A of TNPSS Rules.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that at
\nany  rate  the petitioner, who was a police constable, was trying to discharge
\nhis duty and had assaulted as the person was interfering with the discharge of
\nduty,  and  therefore,  the  order  of  compulsory   retirement   is   grossly
\ndisproportionate.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  In (1995)  6  SCC  749  (B.C.    CHATURVEDI  v.  UNION OF\nINDIA),<\/a> it was observed :\n<\/pre>\n
        18.  …  The High Court\/Tribunal,  while  exercising  the  power  of
\njudicial  review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and
\nimpose some other penalty.  If the  punishment  imposed  by  the  disciplinary
\nauthority  or  the  Appellate  Authority  shocks  the  conscience  of the High
\nCourt\/Tribunal,it would appropriately mould the relief, either  directing  the
\ndisciplinary  authority\/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed,
\nor to shorten the litigation, it may itself in  exceptional  and  rare  cases,
\nimpose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.<\/p>\n
                13.  In (1997)  7 SCC 463 (UNION OF INDIA v.  G.  GANAYUTHAM),<\/a>
\nit was observed :-\n<\/p>\n
        31.  The current position of proportionality in administrative law in
\nEngland and India can be summarised as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        (1) To judge the validity of any  administrative  order  or  statutory
\ndiscretion,normally  the  Wednesbury  test is to be applied to find out if the
\ndecision was illegal or suffered from  procedural  improprieties  or  was  one
\nwhich  no sensible decision-maker could, on the material before him and within
\nthe framework of the law, have arrived at.  The court would  consider  whether
\nrelevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters
\nhad been  taken  into  account  or  whether the action was not bona fide.  The
\ncourt would also consider whether the decision was absurd or  perverse.    The
\ncourt  would  not  however  go  into the correctness of the choice made by the
\nadministrator amongst the various alternatives open to him.    Nor  could  the
\ncourt substitute  its  decision  to  that  of  the administrator.  This is the
\nWednesbury test.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) The court would not interfere with  the  administrators  decision
\nunless  it  was  illegal  or  suffered  from  procedural  impropriety  or  was
\nirrational -in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or  moral
\nstandards.   The  possibility  of  oth  ests,  including proportionality being
\nbrought into English administrative law in future is not ruled out.  These are
\nthe CCSU principles.\n<\/p>\n
        (3)(a) As per Bugdaycay, Brind and Smith as long as the Convention  is
\nnot  incorporated  into  English  law,  the  English  courts merely exercise a
\nsecondary judgment to find out  if  the  decision-maker  could  have,  on  the
\nmaterial  before  him,  arrived  at  the primary judgment in the manner he has
\ndone.\n<\/p>\n
        (3)(b) If the Convention is incorporated in England  making  available
\nthe  principle of proportionality, then the English courts will render primary
\njudgment on the validity of the administrative action  and  find  out  if  the
\nrestriction  is  disproportionate  or  excessive  or  is not based upon a fair
\nbalancing of  the  fundamental  freedom  and  the  need  for  the  restriction
\nthereupon.\n<\/p>\n
        (4)(a)  The  position  in our country, in administrative law, where no
\nfundamental freedoms as aforesaid are involved, is that the courts\/  tribunals
\nwill   only   play   a  secondary  role  while  the  primary  judgment  as  to
\nreasonableness will remain with the  executive  or  administrative  authority.
\nThe  secondary  judgment  of  the  court is to be based on Wednesbury and CCSU
\nprinciples as stated by Lord Greene and Lord Diplock respectively to  find  if
\nthe  executive  or  administrative  authority  has  reasonably  arrived at his
\ndecision as the primary authority.\n<\/p>\n
        (4)(b) Whether in the  case  of  administrative  or  executive  action
\naffecting  fundamental  freedoms,  the  courts  in  our country will apply the
\nprinciple of proportionality and assume a primary role, is left open, to  be
\ndecided  in  an  appropriate  case  where  such  action  is  alleged to offend
\nfundamental freedoms.  It will be then necessary to decide whether the  courts
\nwill have  a primary role only if the freedoms under Articles 19, 21 etc.  are
\ninvolved and not for Article 14.<\/p>\n
                14.  In (1987) 4 SCC 611 (RANJIT THAKUR v.  UNION  OF  INDIA),
\nthe  Supreme  Court<\/a> had interfered with the punishment imposed after coming to
\nthe conclusion that the punishment was in outrageous defiance of logic and was
\nshocking, and perverse and irrational.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  In (1997) 3 SCC 72 (INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD v.   ASHOK
\nKUMAR  ARORA),  the Supreme Court<\/a> observed that the Court should not intervene
\nwith the punishment unless the punishment is wholly disproportionate.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  In the present case, the contention of the petitioner  is
\nto  the  effect  that  the  punishment  of  compulsory  retirement  is grossly
\ndisproportionate.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while
\nthe petitioner was discharging  his  duty,  a  third  person  had  intervened,
\nresulting  in  the  unfortunate  incident, and therefore, any other punishment
\nlike stoppage of increment with cumulative effect could have meet the ends  of
\njustice.\n<\/p>\n
                17.   Before  the  disciplinary  authority, the petitioner had
\ngiven an explanation to the effect  that  the  third  person  had  abused  the
\npetitioner in obscene language and caught hold of the collar of the petitioner
\nand  when  the  petitioner  was  trying  to free himself, the third person had
\nfallen down and sustained the injuries.  This explanation does not  appear  to
\nhave been accepted by the disciplinary authority and it has been found that in
\nfact the  petitioner  had assaulted that person.  In fact a bleeding injury on
\nthe head was sustained and the person had been hospitalised for few days.   It
\nis  obvious  that  the story of the petitioner that the person had fallen down
\nwhile the petitioner was trying to free himself and sustained  the  injury  as
\nsuch  having  not  been  accepted  by the disciplinary authority or any of the
\nhigher authority or the Tribunal, no credence can be given to  such  story  at
\nthis stage.    As  a matter of fact, the finding of the disciplinary authority
\nthat the petitioner had assaulted the third person was not challenged  by  the
\npetitioner by  filing  any appeal.  In view of the factual conclusion that the
\npetitioner assaulted and the person had sustained a  bleeding  injury  on  the
\nhead,  the  submission  of the petitioner regarding the proportionality of the
\npunishment is required to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  May be, if we would have been called upon to examine  the
\nmatter  on a clean slate, that is to say, as an original authority, we would
\nhave been in a better position to consider as to whether any lesser punishment
\nwould have been more appropriate.  In  the  present  case,  the  Head  of  the
\nDepartment  had  already examined the matter and has come to a conclusion that
\nthe petitioner having assaulted a  citizen,  punishment  of  stoppage  of  one
\nincrement  without  cumulative effect was very lenient and such punishment was
\nenhanced to  one  of  compulsory  retirement.     Such   conclusion   of   the
\nAdministrative  Head  has  received  judicial  approval  at  the  hands of the
\nAdministrative Tribunal, which has  observed  that  the  punishment  does  not
\nappear to be disproportionate.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   While  exercising  jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution, the High Court is expected to correct errors of law committed by
\nthe lower Tribunal.  The High Court is required  to  find  out  regarding  the
\nvalidity  of  the  decision  making  process  rather  than sit as an appellate
\nauthority over the decision of the lower authority.  As already indicated, the
\ndecision of the Administrative Head, which obviously was better suited to find
\nout the appropriate punishment, has also received the judicial approval at the
\nhands of the Tribunal.  We do not find any error in the approach made  by  the
\nDirector General of Police or any error in the order passed by the Tribunal so
\nas to substitute our own views in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
                20.   Even  otherwise, this punishment cannot be characterised
\nas grossly disproportionate to the nature of the delinquency.  It is no  doubt
\ntrue  that  onerous duty has been cast on the police to maintain law and order
\nin the Society and while discharging the duty the police may be required, nay,
\nforced to use force.  It is also true that the police personnels, particularly
\nthe lower level of the Department face the ire of the public and at  times  of
\nthe  superior officers as well, but these aspects cannot be used as excuse for
\nthe police officials including at the constable level to  severely  assault  a
\nperson causing  grievous  injury  on the head.  It may be that intervention of
\nthe third person might have enraged the constable, but being a public  servant
\nthe constable was required to act within his limits.  Even though there may be
\noccasions  when  the police is required to use the minimum but requisite force
\nat the time of causing  arrest  or  even  while  preventing  a  criminal  from
\nescaping,  in  the  present case, we do not find any justification for the act
\ncommitted by the petitioner.  If such an act is  condoned,  it  would  give  a
\nwrong signal  to the police to behave in unwarranted fashion.  Moreover, since
\nthe Head of the Department has considered the  matter  and  has  thought  that
\ncompulsory  retirement  would  be  proper, it would be impudent on our part to
\ninterfere with such punishment.  The tenor of several decisions cited  at  the
\nbar,  particularly  by the Special Government Pleader, many of which have been
\nnoticed earlier, is clearly against  the  contention  raised  by  the  learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                21.   Even  the  punishment  of  compulsory retirement has the
\neffect of protecting the pensionary and retirement benefit of the  petitioner.
\nBy  no  stretch  of imagination the punishment can be characterised as grossly
\ndisproportionate to the nature of the delinquency.  We therefore  express  our
\ninability to interfere with the order passed by the Director General of Police
\nas confirmed by the Administrative Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  The Tribunal while dismissing the O.A., had observed that
\nthe  petitioner  is  deemed  to  have  been retired on the date on which he is
\nrelieved from the service.  It appears that after the petitioner was  relieved
\nfrom  service,  he was reinstated by virtue of the interim order passed by the
\nTribunal and was continuing as such  while  the  Tribunal  passed  the  order.
\nSubsequently,  he  had not been relieved by the Department and he was relieved
\nonly after the interim order of stay passed by the High Court was subsequently
\nvacated.  To avoid any confusion in the matter, we observe that the petitioner
\nshall be deemed to have been in service till he was relieved pursuant  to  the
\nvacating of the stay order passed by the High Court.  However, he would not be
\nentitled to  any further amount towards salary.  His pensionary benefits shall
\nbe calculated and paid on the footing  that  he  had  continued  till  he  was
\ncompulsorily  retired  with  effect  from  the  date  on which he was actually
\nrelieved by the Department after the stay order was vacated by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  Subject to the aforesaid clarification, we  do  not  find
\nany merit  in  the  writ  petition, which is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.
\nConsequently, WPMP.No.35852 of 2004 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
dpk <\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Director General of Police, Chennai 4.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Registrar,
\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
\nChennai Bench, Chennai 600 104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16\/02\/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17263 OF 2004 and WPMP.No.35852 OF 2004 R. Krisnaswamy S\/o. Ramaswamy Thevar .. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123702","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-14T04:32:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-14T04:32:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3799,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005\",\"name\":\"R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-14T04:32:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-14T04:32:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-14T04:32:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005"},"wordCount":3799,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005","name":"R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-14T04:32:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-krisnaswamy-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-16-february-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Krisnaswamy vs The Director General Of Police on 16 February, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123702","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123702"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123702\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123702"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123702"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123702"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}