DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Vs. E. JAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the filing of this review application have been narrated and dealt with in ex-tenso in the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed and hence, it is not necessary to restate the facts once again.

(2.) Mr. B.Pugalendhi, learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") as well as to the typed set of documents and would submit that the disciplinary authority has exonerated the respondent from the charges framed against him and the appellate authority cannot review any order passed under the Rules before the expiry of 60 days of the appeal and even assuming that the suo motu review was done by the Commissioner of Police on 31.03.2011, it is within 16 days after the issue of the said disciplinary proceedings, but before the expiry of the mandatory appeal period of 60 days. Therefore, the said act is not legally valid. It is also the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that mere endorsement on the service register cannot be taken as if suo motu review had been done by the concerned official and it is only a mistake committed by the concerned Superintendent and since the charges framed against the petitioner is grave in nature, suo motu review initiated by the departmental head viz., the petitioner herein should reach its logical conclusion and hence, he prays for allowing of the review application.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and would submit that as per Rule 9 of the Rules, the appeal period is not 60 days and it is only 30 days. Admittedly, the alleged suo motu review was done after the expiry of the 30 days and as such it cannot be faulted with. Insofar as the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that mere endorsement on the service register cannot be taken as if suo motu review had been done by the concerned official, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, the exercise of suo motu review of the Commissioner of Police and the entry made by the concerned Superintendent are not at all in dispute and the respondent / writ petitioner is entitled to presume what has been done already is strictly in accordance with the relevant norms and as such it cannot be faulted with. He has also brought to the knowledge of this Court that the respondent, who was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, is continued to keep under suspension and he already reached the age of superannuation on 30.11.2016 and hence, he prays for dismissal of the review application.