Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2435 (MAD)

R. Arul v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home Department, Chennai

2013-07-12

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
Judgment :- 1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow compass. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner did not choose to file appeal. On the other hand, he made a representation to the Hon'ble Minister and the same was treated as Mercy Petition by the Director General of Police. The Director General of Police passed an order dated 19.12.2005 rejecting the mercy petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Government. The Government rejected the revision petition in G.O.(2D) No.391, Home Department dated 20.6.2007. At this juncture, the petitioner has filed the mercy petition on 15.9.2012, after five years of the dismissal of the revision petition. 4. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the mercy petition. 5. Already, the Mercy Petition was disposed of by the Director General of Police. Thereafter, the revision was filed and the same was also disposed of. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot again file a mercy petition. It is also not stated as to under what provision the mercy petition has been filed. 6. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.