Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1214, Public (L & O) E Department dated 21.10.2008 and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 8.11.2008 and to a further direction to the third respondent to reimburse the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- recovered from the petitioner within a reasonable time. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he served as Head Constable attached to Ooty B.1 Town Central Police Station from 4.7.1993 to 23.4.2002. One Prabhu @ Praba was involved in an offence in connection with Crime No.907 of 2001, which was registered under Section 75(1)(c) of CCA Act r/w 506 (ii) I.P.C. The said case was registered based on the complaint preferred by Senthil Kumar and Suresh Kumar. The said Prabhu @ Praba was arrested in connection with the said crime number and the criminal case was under investigation. 3. According to the petitioner, the said Prabhu @ Praba committed suicide leaving behind a suicidal note stating that the petitioner and another Head Constable by name Beeman were responsible for his death. An enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Police Standing Orders 144(5), who submitted a report stating that the petitioner and the said Beeman were not responsible for the suicide committed by the said Prabhu @ Praba. The District Collector having not satisfied with the said report, again ordered for fresh enquiry by another Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn, submitted a report stating that the petitioner and the said Beeman were responsible for the death of the said Prabhu @ Praba. The Government accepting the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer (second Enquiry report), issued an order in G.O.D No.1146 Public (L & O) E Department, dated 9.10.2006 and recommended departmental action against the petitioner and the said Beeman under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 4. The Government also received an intimation from the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi dated 27.8.2008 to pay compensation to the Legal Heir of the deceased Prabhu @ Praba. 4. The Government also received an intimation from the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi dated 27.8.2008 to pay compensation to the Legal Heir of the deceased Prabhu @ Praba. Thereafter, the Government decided to sanction a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the next kin of the deceased Prabhu @ Praba as per the existing norms in G.O.Ms.No.153 Public (Law and Order-B) Department, dated 31.1.1998 and ordered to recover the said amount of compensation from the erred police personnel, who have brought liability to Government. Pursuant to the said decision, the District Collector sanctioned and paid the amount. The Director General of Police requested the Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris District to take action to recover the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-equally from the petitioner and the said Beeman. Thereafter, recovery order was also issued and Rs.50,000/- was recovered from the petitioner and Rs.50,000/- was recovered from the said Beeman. 5. In the departmental proceedings in P.R.No.61 of 2007, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect. The said order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris District on 22.1.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal on 11.2.2009 before the Director General of Police and the Director General of Police, taking note of the recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/-from the petitioner already, modified the punishment by reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year which shall not operate to postpone his future increments by order dated 30.4.2011. The said order was placed before me for perusal. 6. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not aware of the Government Order, ordering recovery of Rs.50,000/-from the petitioner. The order dated 8.11.2008 passed by the Director General of Police alone was served on the petitioner. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the said Government order having not been served on the petitioner, he was not able to challenge the same and he is now praying for refund of the amount already recovered. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner admits that a sum of Rs.50,000/-was recovered from the salary of the petitioner in 14 instalments. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner admits that a sum of Rs.50,000/-was recovered from the salary of the petitioner in 14 instalments. 7. The fact about the ill-treatment of the said Prabhu @ Praba due to which he had committed suicide was proved during Revenue Divisional Officer enquiry as well as in the departmental proceedings. In the departmental proceedings, even though punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years was imposed originally, the same was modified into reduction of time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect only on the basis that the petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the Government Order issued and a copy was not given to the petitioner, is not an answer now because the petitioner was very well aware of the fact that the recovery commenced from the year 2008 and the recovery was also over after 14 months. The petitioner's prayer seeking refund establishes the fact that he was fully aware of the order of recovery and he has also consented for recovering the amount. In the appeal filed against the order of punishment, he has prayed for setting aside the punishment as recovery was ordered. For the loss sustained by the Government, recovery is ordered and for the delinquency, departmental proceedings were initiated and a minor punishment is ordered. The petitioner having pleaded for leniency in punishment on the basis of recovery already ordered, is estopped from challenging the order of recovery. Only on that basis, punishment was modified by the Director General of Police, by an order dated 30.4.2011. Thus, there is a delay of about four years. The reason stated by the petitioner is not acceptable on the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches and on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.