LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-41

M DHARMARAJA Vs. STATE BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (POLICE VI) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI

Decided On June 04, 2018
M Dharmaraja Appellant
V/S
State By Principal Secretary To Government, Home (Police Vi) Department, Secretariat, Chennai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Police Department as Constable on 25.05.1988. He was confirmed in July 1990. He was implicated in Crime No.178 of 1994 on the file of the Sivagangai Town Police Station for the offence under Section 332 of I.P.C. The complaint was given by one Tamil Arasu, who was also working in the same department. The said criminal case however ended in acquittal on 07.10.2003 in C.C.No.65 of 1997 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai. In the meanwhile, based on the criminal case, the petitioner was suspended from service on 02.05.1994 by the third respondent herein. The petitioner was declared as a deserter and by order dated 13.03.1996 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Following acquittal by the Criminal Court, the petitioner submitted a Review Petition dated 24.03.2005. The said Review Petition was directed to be considered by this Court by order dated 06.07.2005 in W.P.(MD).No.597 of 2005. The said representation was however rejected by the Government on 21.10.2005. Questioning the order of rejection issued by the Government, the petitioner filed one more Writ Petition before this Court.

(2.) This Court took the view that the grounds raised by the petitioner have not been dealt with. After setting aside the rejection order dated 21.10.2005 it remitted the matter to the file of the department for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and the impugned G.O.(2D).No.408 dated 27.11.2012 came to be passed. Once again, the petitioner's request for reinstatement was rejected. Questioning the same, this Writ Petition has been filed. The writ petitioner appeared in person and made his submissions.

(3.) The ground taken by the writ petitioner is that the first respondent has mechanically rejected his request and failed to note the procedural irregularities committed by the third respondent.