Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 85564
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J
T. Ramachandraprabu – Appellant
Versus
Director General of Police – Respondent
WP(MD). No.22145 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Malaikani
For the Respondents: G. Sailendra Babu
The court directed the competent authority to consider a petitioner's representation for reinstatement in service after their appointment was cancelled due to criminal cases from which they were subsequently acquitted.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Cancellation based on criminal proceedings - Subsequent acquittal - Petitioner's right to seek reinstatement via representation. (Para 3)
(B) Writ of Mandamus - Consideration of Representation - Direction to the competent authority to decide on the representation within a stipulated timeframe. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation for reinstatement following his acquittal in criminal cases.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Sailendra Babu, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
3. The petitioner here in was appointed on compassionate grounds as Data Entry Operator in Thiruthangal on 25.08.2005. But his appointment was subsequently cancelled by the proceedings in D.O.No. 1362/2025, dated 01.09.2005 on the ground that he was involved in criminal cases in Crime No.322 of 2004 and Crime No 2692 of 2004 of Madurai City B3 Police Station and B12, Thallakulam Police Station respectively. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted in both the criminal cases on 03.11.2014 25.02.2009 respectively, and thereafter the petitioner claims to have approached the respondents on number of occasions and finally submitted representation dated 09.02.2026 seeking reinstatement of the petitioner into service as he was acquitted in both the criminal cases. As no steps has been taken by the respondents on the said representation, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. Mr.G.Sailendra Babu, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, fairly submits that the respondents would consider the representation submitted by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.
5. From the perusal of the representation dated 09.02.2026 stated to have submitted by the petitioner, it is disclosed that the same was addressed to the Honourable Chief Minister and a copy of the same was marked to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. As submitted by Mr.G.Sailendra Babu, learned Government Advocate, it is only the first respondent who can consider the said representation. This Court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of issuing appropriate directions.
6.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 09.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the representation dated 09.02.2026 is not directly addressed to the first respondent, the petitioner is granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the first respondent, while considering the representation dated 09.02.2026, shall also take into consideration the representation to be submitted by the petitioner provided the same is submitted within the time stipulated hereinabove. No Costs.
