Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 671 (MAD)

K. Jayaraman v. Superintendent of Police

2012-02-08

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 13.11.2000 declining the encashment of leave during the period of suspension. 2. The petitioner joined as Police Constable on 07.04.1973, and was promoted as Grade I Police Constable on 1.7.1982. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case, which ended in his conviction. In view of his involvement and detention in a criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension during the criminal trial and on his conviction by the trial court the petitioner was dismissed from service. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction which was allowed, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. As the only ground for dismissal of the petitioner was his involvement of criminal case, on acquittal, application was made for reinstatement which was not accepted which forced the petitioner to file Original Application before Learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. 4. The application filed by the petitioner was disposed of with other similar applications of other co-accused. The operative part of the order reads as under: "5. In view of the fact that the applicants have succeeded in the criminal case and in view of the fact that they were dismissed from service, only based on the conviction, the applicants are entitled for reinstatement. In the circumstances, all the three applications are allowed. The order dated 06.09.1999 in C.No.K1/47022/90 of the respondent in O.A.No.6119 of 1999 and the order dated 3.9.1999 in C.No.K1/15542/99 of the respondent in O.A.Nos. 6120 and 6121 of 1999 are set aside. Consequently, the applicants are entitled to monetary benefits from the date of dismissal from service. The monetary benefits namely arrears of salary, etc, from the date of dismissal upto date, including the increment and other monetary benefits like pongal gift etc. should be paid to the applicants within a period of eight weeks from today." The case of the petitioner is while implementing the order passed by the learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has been denied the encashment of leave, during the period of his suspension though he had surrendered his leave. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the petitioner is entitled to encashment of leave during the suspension period for the reason, that other co-accused were granted this benefit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the petitioner is entitled to encashment of leave during the suspension period for the reason, that other co-accused were granted this benefit. The impugned order declining relief to the petitioner therefore is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. On consideration, I find no force in this contention, it is well settled law, that grant of wrong benefit to an employee does not entitle others to get the same relief under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not perform any duty during the suspension and further more since the date of dismissal till reinstatement, the petitioner was not performing any duty. 8. The fault was not on the part of the respondents, as respondent was justified in terminating the service on conviction. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not performed duty during the period of suspension, the order refusing encashment of leave during period of suspension is fully justified in Law. 9. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.