LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-323

M JANAKIRAMAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Decided On November 27, 2012
M Janakiraman Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent in Re. No. 152582/NGBI(1)/2009, dated 18.11.2011, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to confer all consequential benefits.

(2.) Prima facie, the order under challenge appears to be totally inappropriate, as the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. In this case, based on an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 25043 of 2002, dated 18.9.2007, the Government passed G.O. Ms. No. 1623, Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 12.12.2008 granting benefits to N.K. Kaladaran and C. Raghupathy, who are similarly placed as that of the petitioner and thereafter, the Government thought it fit to extend the said benefit to the petitioner vide G.O. Ms. No. 1026, Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 2.12.2009. A specific direction was issued to the Director General of Police to implement the order of the Government. Therefore, the first respondent will have no jurisdiction to overreach the government order and issue the show cause notice or pass any order contrary to the government order. Such power of review of the government order does not vest with the first respondent. Therefore, on the face of it, the entire proceedings culminating in the impugned order deserves to be set aside and it is set aside. The order is without jurisdiction and in defiance to the government order which directed the Director General of Police to implement the government order.

(3.) Admittedly, the promotion and consequential benefits granted to N.K. Kaladaran and C. Raghupathy vide G.O. Ms. No. 1623, Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 12.12.2008 have not been withdrawn till date. Similarly placed persons cannot be treated differently and the same would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The proceedings of the first respondent goes against the basic principles of service jurisprudence. In any event, the Director General of Police has no authority to usurp the function of the government.