Prayer in WP.No.15570/2007: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order dated 19.01.2007 in proceeding No.G1/PR/63/04 and quash the same.

Prayer in WP.No.31204/2013: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned memo dated 23.10.2013 in proceeding No.F1/PR/63/04 and quash the same.

Prayer in WP.No.5231/2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to settle all the retirement and pecuniary dues and benefits payable to the petitioner herein on his retirement on 31.1.2015 including the monthly pension payable to the petitioner w.e.f. the said date of retirement.

In WP.Nos.15570/2007 & 31204/2013

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Chandran Sundar Sashikumar for Ms.Mythili Srinivas

For Respondents : Mr.C.P.Goutham, Government Advocate (for R1 & R2)

In WP.No.5231/2015

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Chandran Sundar Sashikumar for Ms.Mythili Srinivas

For Respondents : Mr.C.P.Goutham, Government Advocate (for R1 to R3)

Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan (for R4)

COMMON ORDER

All three writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and arise out of a common factual matrix.

2. The crux of the issue in W.P.No.15570 of 2007 centers on a challenge to the impugned order dated 19.01.2007 passed in Proceedings No.G1/PR/63/04, whereby the petitioner was directed to face an oral inquiry. The charge memo, dated 14.11.2004, contained two charges against the petitioner. Both charges pertained to the petitioner approaching the office of the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Chief Minister’s Special Cell with a representation seeking permission to start a police association.

3. During the pendency of the first writ petition, the inquiry proceedings progressed and a memo dated 23.10.2013 was issued to the petitioner. By the said memo, the Inquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved and recommended the imposition of a punishment under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, and subsequently directed the petitioner to submit his explanation within fifteen days. Challenging this second memo, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31204 of 2013.

4. Pending adjudication of these two writ petitions, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation. Consequently, the petitioner filed the third writ petition, W.P.No.5231 of 2015, seeking direction for the settlement of his retirement benefits.

5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Police Department and the counsel appearing for the respondent/Accountant General.

6. When the matters were taken up today for hearing, the Government Advocate submitted that as on date, no final punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. The impugned inquiry order dated 19.01.2007 and the subsequent memo dated 23.10.2013 remain pending without culminating in a final order.

7. Owing to the pendency of these two writ petitions, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service, subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

8. This Court has carefully perused the charges framed against the petitioner. The two charges relate solely to the petitioner submitting a representation to the DGP and the Chief Minister’s Special Cell requesting permission to form a police association. An employee is well within their rights to submit representations to higher authorities, and it is ultimately for the administrative authorities to decide whether such a request can be acceded to. Merely submitting a representation cannot be construed as misconduct, nor can it form the basis for issuing a departmental charge m