DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Vs. T.KAMARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant State and learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

(2.) This appeal arises out of a peculiar case where the defence of the respondent/writ petitioner, on the basis whereof he succeeded before the learned Single Judge, is basically founded on the ratio of the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India , through its Secretary and another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, that has been quoted in extenso by the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition of the respondent/writ petitioner, quashing the suspension order on the ground of prolonged suspension.

(3.) The appellant State and its authorities, in their usual lethargic mode of speed in processing disciplinary matters, particularly relating to incidents where allegations are of corruption, have filed this appeal contending that quashing of the suspension order added with reinstatement of the respondent/writ petitioner on any non-sensitive post, will still hamper the functioning of the department and would be a wrong precedent in the background that the respondent/writ petitioner is a Police Officer of a uniformed disciplinary services of the State Police entrusted with the onerous duty of policing and protecting the citizens of the State.