IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.11.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.P.No.22157 of 2019 A.G.Mohamed Inayathullah ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Chennai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent herein in his proceedings C.No.A1/12746/2019 dated 11.07.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to treat the period of suspension from 17.09.1993 to 02.08.2006 as duty for all the purposes under rule 9 of the Fundamental rules 54 and upgrade the petitioner as Special Sub Inspector of police notionally with effect from 2011 within a time frame by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Bala For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 11.07.2019 and consequently direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 17.09.1993 to 02.08.2006 as duty for all the purposes under Rule 9 of the Fundamental rules, 1954 and upgrade the petitioner as Special Sub Inspector of Police notionally with effect from 2011 within a time frame by this Court.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was joined as Police Constable Grade II on 01.03.1986 and he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable in the year 2001. Further, he was promoted as Head Constable in 2019. While he working as Grade II Police Constable he was placed under suspension on 13.02.1993 for involving as accused in Crime No.796/1991 for the offences under Section 342, 323 of the Indian Penal Code in Mayiladuthurai Police Station and awarded a punishment for removal from service with effect from 07.04.1994 in P.R.No.57/1993 under Rule 3(b) dated 07.04.1997. Further, he was reinstated into service with effect from 02.08.2006 as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.32500 of 2005 dated 20.06.2006 with a condition to conduct a fresh enquiry. Therefore, the period of removal from service from 07.04.1992 to 02.08.2006 shall deemed to have been spent on suspension under Rule 3(d) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1955. The criminal case registered against the petitioner was dropped as no charge sheet was laid against him. Therefore, under the provision of Rule 9 of the Fundamental Rules, 1954, the period of out of employment from 13.02.1993 to 02.08.2006 shall be treated as a duty for all purposes. The petitioner is entitled for restoration of the original seniority.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was placed under suspension only for the involvement of a Criminal case and the said Criminal case was closed for non prosecution. As per rule 9 of the Fundamental Rules, the entire period of out of employment has to be treated as duty. Further, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, had conducted an oral enquiry and the crucial witnesses ie., the complainant had not attended the oral enquiry and he had already expired and the other three individual witnesses had categorically denied the allegations against the petitioner. The said witnesses were treated as hostile by the Enquiry Officer and they were cross examined by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had also cross examined PW6, who had registered an FIR against the petitioner. He categorically stated that he had not conducted the investigation in the said criminal case. Therefore, the Criminal case against the petitioner was closed under Section 468 of CrPC. Therefore, it is clear that neither in the departmental proceedings nor the criminal case the allegation the petitioner was not proved. Therefore, there was no evidence available to prove the char