C UDAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these four writ petitions, the petitioners were policemen, who were originally attached to Palayamkottai Crime Police station. All the four petitioners have challenged the order of recovery, dated 16.2.2009 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli in recovering a sum of Rs.7143/- from each one of them pursuant to the order issued by the State Government in G.O.(D)No.88, Home Police Department, dated 28.1.2009. By the said order, the State Government ordered for recovery of total sum of Rs.50000/- paid to one Mayil Achari, S/o.Sudalaimuthu of Eral in Thoothukudi District as an interim relief and as directed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi.

(2.) PURSUANT to the direction given by the NHRC, the State Government had paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to Mayil Achari and had accepted the recommendation of the Director General of Police and ordered recovery of the amount on equal basis from all seven persons attached to Palayamkottai Crime Police Station.

(3.) IN respect of M/s.H.Thangappan and S.Murugesan, the writ petitions were admitted on 26.5.2009 and an interim stay was granted. Aggrieved by the interim stay, the State Government had filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.1 of 2011 together with supporting counter affidavit, dated 1.6.2011. IN the counter affidavit, it was stated that all the police personnel excepting Udayakumar, the petitioner in W.P.No.4657 of 2009, an enquiry was held and charges were proved. They were also imposed with penalty of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. They have not challenged that order. When once the misconduct of the policeman were proved and the NHRC had also fixed the liability, there is no case for interference with the order of recovery, which has been proportionately fixed on them.