SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Mad) 1133

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
T.V. Devarajan - Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 11513 of 2015 & M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 25-06-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents: K. Mu.Muthu, Additional Government Pleader.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of police personnel to vacate government police quarters upon transfer, and the importance of maintaining discipline in the police force.

Headnote:

Police Quarters - Occupation of Quarters after Transfer - Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules, Rule 53(1)(c) - Summary: The court considered the occupation of government police quarters by a police officer after being transferred to another district. The court emphasized the obligation of police personnel to vacate quarters upon transfer, and the importance of maintaining discipline in the police force. The court also discussed the interpretation of Rule 53(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules and the distinction between suspension before and after superannuation. The court highlighted the need for constructive interpretation of rules and the importance of maintaining efficiency in police administration.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner, a police officer, was transferred to another district but continued to occupy government police quarters in the previous district. The second respondent imposed penal rent for the overstay, leading to the present writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the writ petitioner was not entitled to continue in the government police quarters after being transferred to another district. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in the police force and upheld the imposition of penal rent.

Issues: Occupation of government police quarters after transfer, interpretation of Rule 53(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules, and the obligation of police personnel to vacate quarters upon transfer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that police personnel are obligated to vacate government police quarters upon transfer, and emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in the police force. The court also discussed the interpretation of Rule 53(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules and the distinction between suspension before and after superannuation.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The court upheld the imposition of penal rent and emphasized the obligation of police personnel to vacate government police quarters upon transfer.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.IT3/8816/2009 dated 01.12.2014 and quash the same as illegal.)

The order dated 01.12.2014, issued by the second respondent, imposing penal rent for the overstay of the writ petitioner in the Government Police Quarters, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner strenuously contended that the writ petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable and promoted upto the level of Inspector of Police during the year 2006. On account of an allegation of demand and acceptance of Rs.1,000/- as bribe from one Mr.T.G.Kannan, for returning a gold ring, which was seized from him, a criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner in Crime No.9 of 2007, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 06.09.2007. Subsequently, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2008 and on account of the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal case, he was not allowed to retire from service and an order to that effect was issued by the competent authority in proceedings dated 29.07.2008.

3. The second respondent issued a notice to the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 08.10.2010 calling upon him to vacate the official quarters, which was allotted to him. The writ petitioner submitted his reply on 30.10.2010 stating that he was not allowed to retire from service and therefore, the employer-employee relationship was retained and accordingly, he is entitled to continue in the Government Police quarters allotted to him. Once again, a notice was issued to the writ petitioner on 02.03.2013 calling upon him to vacate the quarters allotted to him. Immediately, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.18042 of 2013 and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2013. In obedience of the orders passed by this Court, the writ petitioner vacated the quarters, which was allotted to him. Consequently, the second respondent issued the impugned order in proceedings dated 01.12.2014 imposing a penal rent for the overstay of the writ petitioner in the Government Police quarters. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The second respondent / Commissioner of Police filed a counter affidavit stating that the Government Police Quarters No.34 at Crime Branch Police Quarters was allotted to the writ petitioner, while he was posted in Madurai City as Head Constable. The writ petitioner was transferred to Ramnad District on administrative grounds. Even after his transfer from Madurai City, he had not vacated the quarters allotted to him. No Police Officer should be allowed to retain the Police quarters after his transfer to another District. The writ petitioner was residing in the quarters with his wife and two male children as per his nomination filed in the Service Roll and not with female child as stated by him in the present writ petition.

5. The writ petitioner was transferred to Ramnad District on 08.09.2006 on administrative grounds and vacated the quarters only on 25.11.2013. Thus, the penal rent of Rs.2,22,740/-, for the period from 08.09.2006 till 25.11.2013, was ordered to be recovered from his salary on installment basis as per the proceedings in CPO No.1032/2012 in C.No.T3/44717/2011, dated 25.06.2012.

6. It is further contended by the second respondent that there is no necessity to instruct the writ petitioner to vacate the quarters and it is his primary duty to vacate the same on his transfer to the other District. However, the writ petitioner has failed to do so in obedience of the terms and conditions of the allotment of the official quarters. During his service in Ramnad District, the writ


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top