IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.11.2023 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.P.No.34424 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.35095 of 2019 A.Malairaj ...Petitioner Vs.

1. The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve Police – I Greater Chennai Police, Chennai – 600 002 ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3^rd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in P.R.No.423/tha.pi3(2)/2018 dated 04.02.2019 and the modified order passed by the 1^st respondent in Rc.No.4727/AP.3(2)/2019 dated 01.06.2019 and to quash the same and to grant all service and monetary benefits and pass other further reliefs.

[Amended vide order dated 23.11.2023 in W.M.P.No.32892 of 2023 in For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar for Mr.M.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar Government Pleader

O R D E R

The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3^rd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in P.R.No.423/tha.pi3(2)/2018 dated 04.02.2019 and the modified order passed by the 1^st respondent in Rc.No.4727/AP.3(2)/2019 dated 01.06.2019 and to quash the same and to grant all service and monetary benefits and pass other further reliefs.

2. The brief facts involved in the Writ Petition is as follows:

(i) The petitioner had joined the service in the year 2009 as Police Constable – II and in the year 2017, there was a difference of opinion with the petitioner's wife, namely, Pandi Priya, therefore, she has preferred the complaint before the All Women Police Station, Melur, Madurai District against the petitioner and his family members. Further, FIR has been registered in Crime No.46 of 2017 dated 28.05.2017 for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition and Harassement of Women Act, 2002, r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Two charges were framed against the petitioner and the said charges were proved and punishment was imposed postponing the increment for three years.

(ii) In the meanwhile, the said FIR in Crime No.46 of 2017 was taken on file in C.C.No.65 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai and on 09.10.2018, the petitioner along with his relatives were acquitted from the charges. Further, the elders of both the families had conducted mediation to resolve the issue and the petitioner along with his wife and daughter are residing together. The 3^rd respondent / enquiry officer, without considering the same had passed final orders and imposed punishment.

(iii) Subsequently, the wife of the petitioner preferred a representation dated 04.03.2019 to the 1^st respondent to set aside the punishment imposed against the petitioner and the 1^st respondent modified the punishment to two years and on 06.08.2019, the 3^rd respondent issued a order with regard to reducion of punishment. As against the order of punishment and the modified order of punishment, the petitioner has come up with the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the punishment awarded is stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect is under challenge, however, in the prayer portion, it has been wrongly mentioned the date of communication, therefore amendment petition has been filed. Further, the case relating to a matrimonial dispute was settled, this vital aspect was not considered by the authorities before passing the impugned order. In fact, the petitioner's wife, Pandi Priya had preferred representation to the 1^st respondent separately on 04.03.2019 and the 1^st respondent had considered the petitioner's representation, as mercy petition and re