R.Ranganathan v. The Superintendent of Police, Salem.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 07.12.2007 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.5885 OF 2007ANDM.P.NO.1 OF 2007R.Ranganathan.. PetitionerVs.1.The Superintendent of Police, Salem.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem... Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to callfor the records of the first respondent relating to P.R.No.12/H3/2001,dated 12.07.2001 and that of the second respondent inProc.Rc.No.B1/7354/2001 (AP.13/2001), dated 15.09.2001, quash the sameand to grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Duraisamy, SC for M/s.Muthumani DoraisamyFor Respondents: Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGPORDERThis writ petition was taken on file by this court inW.P.No.5885 of 2007 on transfer of O.A.No.3065 of 2002 on the file of theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 2.The petitioner has sought for quashing the order of the firstrespondent, dated 12.7.2001 in P.R.No.12/H3/2001 and the second respondentin Proc.Rc.No.B1/7354/2001 (AP.13/2001), dated 15.09.2001.3.The contents of the petition and also the grounds on whichchallenge is made are looked into. The court heard the learned SeniorCounsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for therespondents. 4.The case of the petitioner in short is that while he was working inArmed Reserve Unit, Salem, he was on leave from 21.3.2001 for four days ashis mother fell sick and as she had no one else to attend on her; that hehad applied for leave on 20.3.2001 to the concerned Inspector of Police, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which was also granted. Subsequently, he was to extend his leave as hewas suffering from Chickenpox for a period of one month from 27.3.2001 andagain for five days from 26.4.2001. He submitted leave application alongwith medical certificate. After complete recovery, he met theSuperintendent of Police along with fitness certificate and he allowed himto work. A departmental enquiry was initiated by serving a memo on himthat he has deserted duty for 21 days from 27.3.2001 till 16.4.2001 and anenquiry was conducted. Despite explanation tendered, the DeputySuperintendent of Police, Mettur, who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer,after conducting enquiry, has recorded a finding that he is guilty and hewas further asked to submit his representation, which he made. But, he wasimposed penalty of postponement of increment for two years with cumulativeeffect. Aggrieved over the same, he preferred an appeal, which wasdismissed. Under these circumstances, he moved the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal by way of O.A. to quash the order. 5.In support of the case of the petitioner, the learned SeniorCounsel would submit that in the instant case, the authorities below havepassed the orders without application of mind. It is not in controversythat the petitioner applied for four days leave and that was granted.From 27.3.2001, he was suffering from chickenpox. While he was sufferingso, he has sent the medical certificate on 19.4.2001, but the same wasreturned to the petitioner and after his recovery, the petitioner met theSuperintendent of Police along with the medical certificate and fitnesscertificate and the Superintendent of Police found that his case isgenuine and he has permitted him to rejoin duty. Accordingly, he reportedduty and under these circumstances, the leave application given by himshould have been entertained and granted. On the contrary, the proceedingswere initiated. The explanation tendered by him should have been accepted,but not done so. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that in theinstant case, once the leave application was sent along with the medicalcertificate on 19.4.2001, a duty was cast upon the Department to open thesame, look into and to act on the same, but it was returned. Even thereturn of the said medical certificate, which was submitted by him throughpost on 19.4.2001, was actually incorporated in the order, but theDepartment has no explanation to offer under what circumstances it wasreturned. It is quite natural, when he was suffering from Chickenpox, hehad taken native treatment. Under these circumstances, once he had filedthe medical certificate to the effect that he was suffering fromchickenpox and the Superintendent of Police also was satisfied with thesituation, there was no need to conduct enquiry or to record a findingthat he was found guilty and also to award punishment, in question. Thepetitioner, who got number of rewards to his credit from the department,was denied further promotion because of the imposition of punishment andhence, the it has got to be set aside. 6.The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on theabove contentions.7.After looking into the materials available and considering thesubmissions made, the court is of the considered opinion that the petitionhas got to be ordered as prayed for by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.It is not in controversy that the petitioner, who is the PoliceConstable attached to Armed Reserve Unit, was on leave for a period offour days from 21.3.2001, which was also granted. From 27.3.2001 onwards,he was suffering from Chickenpox. Even from the impugned order, it wouldbe quite clear that he also sent his medical certificate to the departmentby post, but the same was actually returned. Now, it is pertinent to pointout that once the medical certificate was sent by the petitioner, who wasactually suffering from chickenpox and could not move about, the medicalcertificate could have been looked into and entertained. On the contrary,even without opening the postal cover, it was returned to him. Probably,after looking the address of the petitioner, from whom it was sent, theOfficer, who received the postal cover, would have returned it. Even theOfficer can reject it after looking into the certificate. But, in theinstant case, there was no occasion to look into the certificate, sincethe postal cover was not opened or considered. After recovery, thepetitioner along with the fitness certificate, met the Superintendent ofPolice, who has permitted him to rejoin the duty. 9.At this juncture, it remains to be stated that if the SuperiorOfficer, namely the Superintendent of Police, was not satisfied with thecontentions of the petitioner, there was no occasion for him to allow thepetitioner to report duty. On the instructions of his superior officer,namely the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner has reported duty.Considering the facts that he was actually suffering from Chickenpox andhe sent his medical certificate on 19.4.2001 and the same has not beenlooked into or considered by the department, but he was allowed to rejoinduty along with medical certificate and fitness certificate, it is a fitcase where leave should have been granted and there was no need even forinitiating proceedings. But, there was proceedings initiated. At least,the explanation tendered by the petitioner should have been accepted, butnot done. Apart from that, not even one incident was brought to the noticeof the authority or court to speak about the bad antecedent of thepetitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner would submit that he has gotnumber of rewards from the department while he was working. 10.In appraisement of all the facts and circumstances of the case,the court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where theentire proceedings initiated and also the punishment awarded have got tobe quashed. Accordingly, they are quashed. This writ petition is ordered.No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarvvk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Superintendent of Police, Salem.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem.1 cc To M/s.Muthumani Doraisamy, Advocate, SR.72642.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.72841.W.P.NO.5885 OF 2007SGL(CO)RVL 14.12.2007