ORDER :

1. The prayer sought for herein is to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings bearing Rc. No. 91/005424/PR-S-(1)/2009 dated 2.5.2012 from files of the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to regulate the period of non-employment of the petitioner strictly following the procedure laid down in Rule 54-A(2) of the Fundamental Rules and pass appropriate orders granting consequential monetary benefits and other attendant benefits within a time frame.

2. The short facts which are required for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows. That the petitioner joined in the Police Department as Grade-II Police Constable on 25.10.1984. He was then promoted as Grade-I Police Constable on 25.07.1995. While he was working so, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 24.07.2000 pending enquiry into charges. On 25.07.2000, a charge memo stating three charges were issued against the petitioner, wherein enquiry was conducted. After enquiry, based on the Enquiry Officer's report, the disciplinary authority, having accepted the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, imposed the punishment of removal of service against the petitioner by an order dated 05.03.2001.

3. Challenging the said order of punishment, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 2646 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In the said O.A. the Tribunal by an order dated 28.01.2004 having gone into the merits of the issue raised therein, was pleased to set aside the order of punishment of removal of service made against the petitioner, however directed the respondents to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect and also directed to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages for the non-employment period.

4. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Tribunal, having accepting the same, though the respondent Department reinstated the petitioner on 13.08.2007, however, preferred an appeal by way of a writ petition in W.P. No. 21928 of 2004 only with respect to the direction issued by the Tribunal to give full backwages to the petitioner for the non-employment period.

5. The said writ petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 13.02.2009, where the Division Bench was of the opinion that, while setting aside the punishment of removal of service and directing alternative punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the Department to give full backwages to the petitioner for the non-employment period and the same, according to the Division Bench, should have been left to the discretion of the Department. Thereafter, it seems that the petitioner, in April 2009, had given a representation to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for giving the benefit of backwages and other service benefits, of course, pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench.

6. Subsequently, the respondents, without issuing a show cause notice or giving any opportunity to the petitioner, passed an order dated 24.10.2010 denying the benefit of backwages and other financial benefits and by only treating the non-employment period as eligible leave including EOL to the extent necessary as per Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as F.R.) 54.

7. Aggrieved over the said order dated 24.10.2010, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing another writ petition in W.P. No. 26243 of 2010, where a learned Judge passed an order on 07.04.2011, dismissing the writ petition stating that, there was no infirmity in the order dated 24.10.2010. However, the petitioner, not satisfied with the said order passed by the learned Judge, has preferred an intra-court appeal in W.A. No. 1478 of 2011, where a Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 30.06.2011, allowed the writ appeal, to the extent to remand the matter to the respondents for reconsideration afresh of course in ac