{"id":159682,"date":"2006-05-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006"},"modified":"2018-02-10T01:06:19","modified_gmt":"2018-02-09T19:36:19","slug":"m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006","title":{"rendered":"M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 17\/05\/2006 \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE Miss JUSTICE K. SUGUNA       \n\nW.P.No.32507 of 2005  \n\nM. Murugesan                   .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Director General of Police\n    Admiralty House\n    Government Estate\n    Anna Salai,\n    Madras-2.\n\n2. The Deputy Inspector\n   General of Police\n    Madurai Range,\n    Madurai\n\n3. The Superintendent of Police\n    Madurai District,\n    Madurai                                     .. Respondents\n\n\n        Petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified  Mandamus  to  quash\npara 12 of the instructions issued by the first respondent in Memo No.554\/NGBI\n(2)\/95   dated  26.1.1996  and  consequently  to  direct  the  respondents  to\nregularise the services of the Applicant  in  the  post  of  Sub-Inspector  of\nPolice  pursuant  to  and  in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal in para 72\n(vii) in O.A.  No.  1565 of  1995  and  other  cases  of  Police  batch  dated\n13.11.1995  as  he  has  been  acting  continuously as Sub-Inspector of Police\ncontinuously and without any break  from  26.6.1987  for  more  than  8  years\nwithout  taking  into  consideration  the  charge  memo  in  PR NO.65\/92 dated\n2.7.1992 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D &amp; A).\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.  S.Vadivelu\n\n^For Respondents:  Mr.  V.Subbiah \n                Additional Government Pleader\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>The writ petitioner has initially filed O.A.  No:  1026 of 1996 on the file of<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu Administrative  Tribunal,Chennai,  for  regularisation  of  his<br \/>\nservice  in  the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police in terms of the order passed<br \/>\nin O.A No:  1565 of 1995 dated 13.11.1995 and the same has been transferred to<br \/>\nthe file of this Honble Court and re-numbered as W.P.  No:  32507 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  Originally the writ petitioner was directly recruited as a Grade I  Police<br \/>\nConstable with  effect  from  15.04.1974.   Subsequently, he was promoted as a<br \/>\nhead constable with effect from 15.03.1982  and  he  was  promoted  as  a  Sub<br \/>\nInspector  of Police as out of turn promotion with effect from 26.06.1987 on a<br \/>\ntemporary basis.  In the year 1989, though an  order  of  reversion  had  been<br \/>\nissued, by virtue of the interim order of stay granted by the Tribunal in O.A.<br \/>\nNo:   820  of  1989  dated 13.0 6.1989, which was subsequently continued by an<br \/>\norder dated 31.08.1989 , it was not given effect to.  To say in  other  words,<br \/>\nthe  petitioner and other similarly placed persons were continuing in the same<br \/>\npost of Sub Inspector of Police by virtue of the interim stay granted  by  the<br \/>\nTribunal.  Subsequently, a batch of cases viz.  O.A.  Nos:  1565 of 1995, etc.<br \/>\nwere  disposed of by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by its order dated<br \/>\n13.11.1995 and as  per  that  order  the  Tribunal  directed  that,  the  head<br \/>\nconstables  who  have  been acting as Sub Inspectors of Police for a period of<br \/>\nsix years and above as on the date of  the  impugned  memorandum  without  any<br \/>\nbreak  or without any black mark or without any punishment whatsoever shall be<br \/>\nregularized as Sub Inspector of Police and seniority shall be fixed  according<br \/>\nto the  Rules.  Subsequent to the orders of the Tribunal, the Director General<br \/>\nof Police has issued a memorandum dated 26.01.1996  in  Memo  No:    554\/NGB.I<br \/>\n(2)\/95.   Paragraph  9 of that memorandum states that the police personnel who<br \/>\nare eligible for screening by the Range  Promotion  Board  but  are  currently<br \/>\nunder  suspension or against whom disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3 (b) of<br \/>\nthe T.N.P.S.S.  (D &amp; A) Rules of 1955 are now  pending,  screening  should  be<br \/>\ndeferred  and  their  cases  should  be  considered after the disposal of such<br \/>\nproceedings.  In other words, the memorandum states that  against  the  police<br \/>\npersonnel,  who  are  eligible  to appear before the Range Promotion Board for<br \/>\nscreening, if any disciplinary proceeding is pending their  cases  has  to  be<br \/>\ndeferred  and  their  cases  can be considered only after the disposal of such<br \/>\nproceedings.  Basing on this memorandum, inspite of the specific orders of the<br \/>\nTribunal, the petitioners service was not regularised in  the  cadre  of  Sub<br \/>\nInspector of  Police  with  effect  from  26.06.1987.  Subsequently, only with<br \/>\neffect from 13.02.1995, petitioners service was regularized in the  cadre  of<br \/>\nSub Inspector of Police.  Hence, he has filed the above<\/p>\n<p>Original  Application  seeking  regularization  of  service  with  effect from<br \/>\n26.06.1987 based on the orders of the Tribunal dated 13.11.1995 in O.A.    No:<br \/>\n1565 of 1995, etc.  batch.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner has contended that even as per the<br \/>\nmemorandum issued by the Director General of Police dated 26.01.1996, the same<br \/>\nhas been issued giving effect to the orders of the  Tribunal  passed  in  O.A.<br \/>\nNO:  1565 of 1995, etc.  dated 13.11.1995.  As per the orders of the Tribunal,<br \/>\nthe  head  constables  who  have  been acting as Sub Inspector of Police for a<br \/>\nperiod of six years and above, on the date of the impugned memorandum, without<br \/>\nany black mark or without any punishment whatsoever their services  should  be<br \/>\nregularised in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police and their seniority has to<br \/>\nbe fixed  according  to  the  Rules.  According to the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner, the date of the memorandum which was  impugned  in  the  batch  of<br \/>\nOriginal  Application is dated 22.02.1995 and thus, based on the orders of the<br \/>\nTribunal, the service of the petitioner in  the  cadre  of  Sub  Inspector  of<br \/>\nPolice  has  to  be  regularised  with  effect  from  the date of his original<br \/>\npromotion namely with effect from 1987.  Learned counsel  for  the  petitioner<br \/>\nfurther  contended that the condition laid down in the above said order of the<br \/>\nTribunal for regularisation is that as  on  21.02.1995  the  concerned  person<br \/>\nshould  have  served  for a period of six years as a Sub Inspector without any<br \/>\nbreak or without any black mark or without any  punishment  whatsoever.    But<br \/>\noverlooking  this  criteria,  the  Director  General  of  Police  has issued a<br \/>\nmemorandum dated 26.01.1996 wherein one more condition has been added i.e.  if<br \/>\nany disciplinary proceeding was pending  against  the  individual  he  is  not<br \/>\neligible for  screening  by  the  Range  Promotion Board.  Since a charge memo<br \/>\ndated 2.7.1992 was pending against  the  petitioner,  his  services  were  not<br \/>\nregularized and  he  was given promotion only with effect from 13.02.1995.  As<br \/>\nsuch, according to the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner,  the  impugned<br \/>\norder\/memorandum  of  the first respondent herein is contrary to the orders of<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and hence, the same is liable to be set<br \/>\naside and consequentially, petitioners service in the cadre of Sub  Inspector<br \/>\nof Police has to be regularised taking into account his earlier promotion.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has contended<br \/>\nthat  even  as  per the order of the Tribunal also the head constables who are<br \/>\nacting as Sub Inspector of Police for a period of six years and  above  as  on<br \/>\n21.02.1995 without any black mark or without any punishment are alone would be<br \/>\neligible  for  consideration and the term punishment includes even pendency of<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings also.  As such, since a charge memo has  been  issued<br \/>\nto the petitioner on 2.7.1982, as per the Tribunals order also his service in<br \/>\nthe  cadre of Sub Inspector cannot be regularised with effect from 26.06.1987.<br \/>\nThat apart, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that  when  a<br \/>\ndisciplinary  proceeding  is  pending against a Government Servant even as per<br \/>\nthe normal rule, his case cannot be considered for promotion till the disposal<br \/>\nof the disciplinary proceedings.  Accordingly, the impugned memorandum  passed<br \/>\nby  the  Director  General  of  Police  is  not  contrary to the orders of the<br \/>\nTribunal and hence, the O.A.\/ W.P.  has to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  I have considered the submissions made by both the sides.  Admittedly, the<br \/>\napplicant\/writ petitioner is also one of the applicant in the  batch  of  O.As<br \/>\nwhich was  disposed  of  by  the  Tribunal  by order dated 13.1.2005.  In that<br \/>\norder, the Tribunal has directed that the services of the head constables  who<br \/>\nhave  been  acting  as  Sub  Inspector of Police for a period of six years and<br \/>\nabove as on 21.02.1995 without any black mark and without any punishment shall<br \/>\nbe regularised as Sub Inspector of Police and their seniority  will  be  fixed<br \/>\naccording to  the  Rules.    The respondent herein who has passed the impugned<br \/>\nmemorandum is also a party to the said proceedings before the Tribunal.   That<br \/>\napart as  against  the  order  passed in the above said O.A.  neither any writ<br \/>\npetition has been filed nor any clarification  has  been  sought  for  by  the<br \/>\nDepartment.  As such, the order passed in the above O.A.  has become final.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  As per the orders of the Tribunal only three conditions are required to be<br \/>\nfulfilled by a head constable to be promoted as a Sub Inspector of Police viz.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.   he  should  have been acting as a Sub Inspector of Police for a period of<br \/>\nmore than six years or more as on 21.02.19 95; 2.   he  should  not  have  any<br \/>\nblack mark and  3.    he should not have suffered any other punishment.  These<br \/>\nare the three conditions which are required for regularisation of the  service<br \/>\nin the  cadre  of Sub Inspector.  As far as the petitioner is concerned, as on<br \/>\n21.02 .1995 neither there was any black  mark  nor  any  punishment  has  been<br \/>\nimposed upon  him.    He has been issued with a charge memo dated 27.02.19 92.<br \/>\nBut by way of a memorandum dated 26.01.1996, the Director  General  of  Police<br \/>\nhas  stated  that  against those head constables, who are the beneficiaries of<br \/>\nthe said O.A., if any disciplinary proceeding is pending, their cases  has  to<br \/>\nbe  deferred  and  it  can  be  considered only after the disposal of the said<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings.  Based on this memorandum only, the service  of  the<br \/>\nwrit  petitioner  has  not  been  regularised in the cadre of Sub Inspector of<br \/>\nPolice.  When there is a specific order of the Tribunal as  stated  above,  by<br \/>\nway  of  implementing  it,  the respondent cannot introduce one more condition<br \/>\nwhich has not been prescribed by the Tribunal in its  order  and  thereby  the<br \/>\napplicants in the O.A.  cannot be denied of their benefits that flows from the<br \/>\norder of  the  Tribunal.    The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1994<br \/>\nvol.26 Administrative Tribunals Cases 448 <a href=\"\/doc\/318991\/\">(S.  Nagaraj and others vs.    State<br \/>\nof  Karnataka  and others<\/a>) had held that an order of the competent Court, even<br \/>\nthough erroneous, mistaken or improperly obtained  cannot  be  substituted  or<br \/>\nclarified  or  modified  by  the  executing  authority  according to their own<br \/>\nunderstanding of the order.  In this case, the Department had  neither  sought<br \/>\nfor  a  clarification  from  the Tribunal nor had filed an appeal against that<br \/>\norder.  Therefore, it is very clear that the order of the Tribunal has  to  be<br \/>\nimplemented  as  it is and no new condition can be imposed by the respondents.<br \/>\nOn the facts of the case on hand,  a  charge  memo  has  been  issued  to  the<br \/>\npetitioner on 2.7.199 2 for an occurrence which took place in January 1990 and<br \/>\nfinal  order  has been passed on 13.10.1997 imposing a punishment of reduction<br \/>\nin time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years i.e.   punishment<br \/>\nhas been  imposed  after  the  lapse  of  7 years.  As per the judgment of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court reported in 1995 2 SCC 570  (State  of  Punjab  V.    Chammanlal<br \/>\nGoyal)  also  when  there  is  undue delay in the finalisation of disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings, the delinquent is entitled for promotion.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.  Hence, on the above stated facts and on the settled legal position,  I  am<br \/>\nof  the  opinion  that  the  petitioner  is entitled for regularisation of his<br \/>\nservices in the cadre of Sub Inspector of  Police  basing  on  the  Tribunals<br \/>\norder dated 13.11.1995  passed in O.A.  NO:  1565 of 19 95, batch and also for<br \/>\nother consequential benefits.  This writ petition is  allowed  as  prayed  for<br \/>\nwithout any orders as to the costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>gp<\/p>\n<p>Copy to :\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Director General of Police<br \/>\nAdmiralty House<br \/>\nGovernment Estate<br \/>\nAnna Salai,<br \/>\nMadras-2.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Deputy Inspector General of Police<br \/>\nMadurai Range,<br \/>\nMadura.i<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Superintendent of Police<br \/>\nMadurai District,<br \/>\nMadurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 17\/05\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE Miss JUSTICE K. SUGUNA W.P.No.32507 of 2005 M. Murugesan .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Director General of Police Admiralty House Government Estate Anna Salai, Madras-2. 2. The [&hellip;]<\/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-159682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-09T19:36:19+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-09T19:36:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1760,\"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\\\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006\",\"name\":\"M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-09T19:36:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-09T19:36:19+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006","datePublished":"2006-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-09T19:36:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006"},"wordCount":1760,"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\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006","name":"M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-09T19:36:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-murugesan-vs-the-director-general-of-police-on-17-may-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Murugesan vs The Director General Of Police on 17 May, 2006"}]},{"@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\/159682","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=159682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159682\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}