Madras High Court
A.Amirtaraj vs The Commandant on 10 January, 2025
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P.No.11075 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.11075 of 2020
& W.M.P No.13480 of 2020
A.Amirtaraj
S/o.Anthony Muthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commandant
TSP VI Battalion
Madurai
2. The Inspector General of Police
Armed Police, Trichy
3. The Director General of Police
Tamilnadu, Chennai – 4
4. The Secretary to Govt.
Home (Police IX) Dept
Fort St.George, Chennai -9 ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed
by him in PR.No.21/2007 dated 31.01.2008 and confirmed by the 2nd
respondent in his C.No.A2/Appeal 7/2008 dated 5.4.2008 and further
_________
Page 1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11075 of 2020
confirmed by the 3rd respondent in his Rc.No.153206/AP.3(1)/2015
dt.20.12.2016 and the 4th respondent in GO(D) No.959 Home (Pol.9)
Department dated 13.08.2018 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all
consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhakaran
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 31.01.2008, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent, 3rd respondent and 4th respondent by proceedings dated 05.04.2008, 20.12.2016 and 13.08.2018 respectively and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and also to grant him with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he entered the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services as Grade II Police Constable on 01.03.2002 through selection conducted by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Board. After _________ Page 2 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 training, the petitioner was posted in Tamil Nadu Special Police VI Battalion, Madurai and he successfully completed his probation. Thereafter, in view of the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case in Crime No.273 of 2007 on the file of Arni Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 333, 354, 353, 510 IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 2002, he was suspended from service. After an ex parte preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 31.10.2007 under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 [hereinafter “TNPSS (D&A) Rules”]. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report, after examining the oral and documentary evidence, to the Disciplinary Authority on 27.12.2007 holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner was issued with a copy of the enquiry report and was asked to submit his response. The petitioner submitted his response to the Enquiry Report on 22.01.2008 through proper channel. The Disciplinary Authority, namely the _________ Page 3 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 first respondent agreed with the Enquiry Officer and by an order dated 31.01.2008 imposed a punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal to the second respondent on 05.03.2008 and the second respondent, as an Appellate Authority, without considering any of the points raised by the petitioner in his appeal, rejected the same by a non-speaking order on 05.04.2008. In the meantime, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on merits by order dated 09.07.2015 in C.C.No.340 of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, Arni, Thiruvannamalai District. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before the third respondent based on the acquittal by the Criminal Court and the same was also rejected and the punishment of dismissal from service was confirmed by the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that after the recruitment as Grade II Police Constable in TSP VI Battalion Madurai, the petitioner was posted as Computer Operator as On- _________ Page 4 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 Duty Basis at Police Training College, Chennai during the year 2005-06. While so, one Deepa, who was selected as Woman Sub-Inspector (WSI) was undergoing institutional training at the same college. It was falsely alleged that the said Deepa (WSI) and the petitioner were very close and there was a rumour that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with said Deepa (WSI). The learned Senior counsel submitted that Deepa (WSI) is a married woman having a daughter studying in school at that point of time. The husband of said Deepa, who had suspicion, issued a legal notice on 09.08.2007 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of her alleged intimacy with the petitioner. After preliminary enquiry, the petitioner and said Deepa (WSI) were given a charge memo under Section 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules alleging that the petitioner had illicit intimacy with Deepa (WSI). After institutional training, Deepa was posted to Trivellore District and the petitioner, who was posted at SIPCOT Police Station, visited her and thereby committed reprehensible conduct. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner is that WSI at one point of time wanted to severe her relationship with him, but he _________ Page 5 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 refused and threatened her with dire consequences through phone as well as in person. The another charge is that while said Deepa (WSI) was serving in SIPCOT Police Station, the petitioner visited her husband in a drunken mood and threatened him with dire consequences if he does not withdraw the complaint against him in Kadaladi Police Station in Petition No.222 of 2006 wherein the police officials got an undertaking from the petitioner that he will not repeat the same and in spite of the same, the petitioner fought with said Deepa. The further allegation against the petitioner is that in September 2006, the petitioner took Deepa (WSI) to Arambakkam Panangadu Village and attempted to rape her in a dilapidated building which led to public notice and thereby the incident was published in a newspaper on 29.05.2006. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that a similar charge memo was issued to Deepa (WSI), both of them contested the charge memo before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer without even conducting proper enquiry, held that the charges have been proved and submitted a proved minute to the Disciplinary Authority, namely DIG of Police, Kancheepuram and the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the _________ Page 6 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed a punishment of reduction in pay by 3 stages for 3 years with cumulative effect by an order dated 19.06.2007 on the petitioner. Similarly, Deepa (WSI) was also found guilty of the charges and she was also imposed with the same punishment. Thereafter, the petitioner's On Duty was cancelled and he was posted again at TSP VI Battalion, Madurai. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that Deepa had personal animosity and in order to take a revenge, she foisted a false case against the petitioner which resulted in registration of a criminal case against the petitioner in Crime No.273 of 2007 on the file of Arni Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 333, 354, 353, 510 IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case and based on the letter of Sub-Inspector of Police, Arni Town Police Station, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the orders of the first respondent, the Commandant, TSP VI Battalion, Madurai dated 07.09.2007. After _________ Page 7 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 conducting an ex parte preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS ( D& A) Rules in P.R.No.21 of 2007 dated 31.10.2007. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner specifically denied the charges stating that he was on medical leave and was undergoing treatment at Thiruvannamalai at the relevant point of time and a false case was foisted against him. It is his further submission that earlier disciplinary proceedings was initiated against said Deepa (WSI) and after enquiry, she was suspended from service and she was also imposed with a punishment of reduction in pay by 3 stages for 3 years by the DIG of Police, Kanchipuram Police Station.
4. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the petitioner, after acquittal in the criminal case, preferred a mercy petition to the third respondent on 18.08.2015 along with a copy of the judgment rendered in the criminal case but the third respondent without considering any of the points raised by the petitioner and also the acquittal recorded in the criminal Court, held that the acquittal in the criminal case need not be a _________ Page 8 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 ground for reinstatement and rejected the mercy petition and confirmed the punishment. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a memorial petition to the fourth respondent on 05.04.2017 along with all documents in support of his claim for reinstatement, but the same was also rejected by a non-speaking order dated 13.08.2018.
5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment was imposed on the petitioner due to his involvement in the criminal case but the petitioner was acquitted of the charges on merits by the judicial forum stating that the offence against the petitioner has not been proved by the prosecution. The learned Senior counsel submitted that since the said finding was rendered after a full contest, the same has to be considered in its letter and spirit instead of rejecting the same on the ground of preponderance of probability by imposing a major punishment of dismissal from service. It is the further submission of learned Senior counsel that there is plenty of evidence to show that there is a motive for said Deepa (WSI) who asked the petitioner to come to Arni Town Police Station and foisted a false case against him. The learned Senior Advocate _________ Page 9 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 would further submit that the third respondent, who is the Head of the Department, after petitioner preferred the mercy petition along with the copy of the judgment of the Criminal Court in C.C.No.340 of 2007 dated 09.07.2015, has failed to take into consideration the details in the mercy petition wherein the petitioner has specifically mentioned that the criminal case was falsely foisted against the petitioner and the issue was decided by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority during the pendency of the criminal case but the third respondent failed to consider the evidence available on record and held that though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same and confirmed the punishment stating that the petitioner has committed the delinquency, which is unsustainable in law. It is his further submission that a reading of the order of the third respondent clearly shows the non- application of mind of the Authority who had issued the same. According to learned Senior counsel, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and it is disproportionate to the nature of delinquency and he prayed for quashing of the impugned orders. _________ Page 10 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020
6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 03.12.2022. Adverting to the counter affidavit, learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the first respondent herein vide Battalion Order No.404 of 2007, C.No.E1/7242/2007 dated 07.09.2007 on account of his highly indisciplinary action in having misbehaved in drunken mood with Deepa (WSI), All Women Police Station, Vandavasi, Thiruvannamalai District while he was on medical leave and restrained her from doing bandobust duty resulting in registration of a criminal case in Cr.No.273/2007 for offences under Sections 294(b), 333, 354, 353, 510 IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 2002 and subsequently he was arrested and remanded to custody on 04.09.2007 at 17.00 hours and in this connection he was dealt with on a charge in Punishment Roll No.21/2007 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1955 for the following delinquency:
“ kJiu j/rp/f 6k; mzp “@,@ epWkj;ij _________ Page 11 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 nrh;e;j ehaf; 5388 A.mkph;juh$; (jw;nghJ jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk;) vd;gth; 29/08/2007 Kjy; 17/09/2007 tiu 20 ehl;fs; kUj;Jt tpLg;g[ mDgtpj;J te;jth;.
04/09/2007 md;W bgz; rhh;g[ Ma;thsh; jpUkjp/jPgh f-bg nfhtpe;jd;. midj;J kfsph; fhty; epiyak;.
te;jthrp. jpUtz;zhkiy khtl;lk;. Vd;gth;
Muzpapy; rl;lk; kw;Wk; xG';F gzpapy; ,Ue;JnghJ nkw;fz;l eguhd mkph;juh$; vd;gth; Fonghijapy; bgz; rhh;g[ Ma;thshplk; jfuhW bra;jJ. bjhlh;ghf nkw;go bgz; rhh;g[ Ma;thsh; bfhLj;j g[fhupd;
nghpy; Muzp efu fhty; epiyaj;jpy; 04/09/2007 md;W Muzp fhty;epiua Fw;w vz;/273-2007. under Section 294(b), 354, 353, 323, 510 Indian Penal Code kw;Wk; r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002 d; fPH; tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;L rpiwapyilf;fg;gl;lhh;/ ,J bjhlh;ghf jstha;.
j/rp/fh 6k; mzp kJiu mth;fspd; mYtyf mzp
Miz vz;: 404/2007 e/f/vz;/,1/7242/2007 ehs;
07/09/2007 d;go nkw;fz;l egiu jw;fhypf gzp
ePf;fk; bra;J Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;L mjid
Kiwg;go md;dhuplk; 13/09/2007 md;W rhu;g[ bra;J Vw;gspg;g[ bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,J fz;zpakpf;f fhty;Jiwia fs';fk; tpistpf;Fk; tifapy;
_________
Page 12 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11075 of 2020
mikj;Js;s xG';fPdkhd fhty;Jiw fl;Lg;ghl;il
kPwpa fz;of;fj;jf;f bray;/@
7/ The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the Deputy Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police VI Battalion, Madurai has been nominated as Oral Enquiry Officer and he conducted an oral enquiry and held that the charges are proved vide minutes dated 27.12.2007 on the evidence of five prosecution witnesses and 7 documents which are marked as prosecution exhibits. The petitioner was also allowed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner has neither produced defence witness nor submitted any documents. The learned Government Advocate submitted that before passing the final orders, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case by supplying the copy of the minutes of the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner has also submitted a representation on 22.01.2008. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the first respondent has agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service vide _________ Page 13 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 order dated 31.01.2008 against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner and the same was also rejected by the second respondent on 05.04.2008 as it was time barred and the mercy petition to the third respondent was also rejected on 20.12.2016. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that the petitioner sent a petition to the Government with a request to cancel the punishment of dismissal from service imposed in P.R.No.21 of 2007. After careful examination of the Punishment Roll file and connected records, the Government rejected the representation of the petitioner as devoid of merits vide G.O (D) No.959 Home (Pol.9) Department, dated 13.08.2018. The petitioner was dealt with another charge earlier under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 in Punishment Roll No.31 of 2006. It was submitted that the charges against the petitioner in Punishment Roll No.31 was clearly established in the oral enquiry through prosecution witnesses and prosecution documents vide minutes of the Oral Enquiry Officer dated 21.02.2007. It was further submitted that the intimacy between the petitioner and said Deepa (WSI) was not a rumour and it was found to be _________ Page 14 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 true based on the discreet enquiry report submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime, Tiruvallur District vide his letter dated 03.10.2006 in C.No.484/DCRB/Thiruvallur/2006, which was marked as prosecution Exhibit No.10 and hence, the petitioner was awarded with the punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years and the order shall operate to postpone his future increments by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range on 19.06.2007.
8. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that during the enquiry, the Prosecution Witness No.2, Tr.Malaisamy, Inspector of Police, Kannamangalam Police Station, Incharge Arani Circle, Thjiruvannamalai District has deposed on 08.12.2007 and during cross examination by the petitioner (Question No.2), the witness has confirmed that the petitioner has confessed the complaints when he was arrested and the witness has mentioned the same in the remand report.
9. The mercy petition sent to the third respondent on 18.08.2015 was rejected by way of a speaking order dated 20.12.2016 by stating that while criminal Court requires high standard of proof for conviction while _________ Page 15 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 such proof is not necessary for finding a person guilty in a disciplinary proceedings. The fourth respondent also considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected as devoid of merits vide G.O (D) No.959, Home (Pol.9) Department dated 13.08.2018 with the following observations:
“.....Even if, the petitioner was acquitted from the Criminal case, the departmental disciplinary action has been taken against him, for causing disreputation to the Police Department. Hence, the Punishment of 'Dismissal from Service' imposed on him commensurate with the delinquency committed by him. Furtehr, the delinquent has not put forth any valid, justifiable reasons and also not adduced any fresh grounds in his petition for consideration”.
10. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
11. In the case on hand, the petitioner involved in two delinquencies. First delinquency was under Punishment Roll No.31/2006 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1955 and it was clearly established in the oral enquiry through prosecution witnesses and prosecution exhibits vide minutes of the _________ Page 16 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 oral Enquiry Officer dated 21.02.2007. The intimacy between the petitioner and said Deepa (WSI) was found to be true based on the discreet enquiry submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime, Tiruvallur District vide his letter in C.No.484/DCRB/Thiruvallur/2006 dated 03.10.2006, which was marked as Prosecution Exhibit No.10 and the petitioner was awarded with the punishment of reduction in pay by three stages for three years and the order shall operate to postpone his future increments by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range vide order dated 19.06.2007. The second delinquency is under P.R.No.21 of 2007. The second delinquency is that he was involved in a criminal case in Arni Police Station vide Crime No.273 of 2007 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 333, 354, 353, 510 IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 2002 in which he was subsequently arrested and remanded for 15 days in Central Jail, Vellore on 04.09.2007 and was dealt with the charge in Punishment Roll No.21/2007 under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services _________ Page 17 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955. An Enquiry Officer was nominated and the Enquiry Officer, after examining the oral and documentary evidences, filed a minutes dated 27.12.2007 holding that the charges are proved. The first respondent i.e., the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police VI Battalion has agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in holding that the charges are proved and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 31.01.2008.
12. The criminal case in Crime No.273 of 2007 on the file of Arni Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District was taken on file as C.C.No.340 of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, Arani in regard to the second delinquency and after contest and based on the material evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the petitioner on merits by an order dated 09.07.2015. It is clearly stated in the order that the prosecution has failed to prove the case and hence the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case.
13. It is pertinent to note that though the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case as the prosecution has failed to prove the case, _________ Page 18 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 on perusal of the records it is clear and evident that the petitioner does not bear a good conduct and behaviour which is mandatory for the person serving in the uniformed services like Police Department.
14. The petitioner already involved in Punishment Roll No.31 of 2006 for which the punishment of reduction in pay by 3 stages for 3 years with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. The first Punishment Roll i.e., P.R.No.31 of 2006 is in regard to intimacy between the petitioner and Ms.Deepa (WSI) which was proved based on the enquiry report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime, Tiruvallur District vide his letter in C.No.484/DCRB/Thiruvallur/2006 dated 03.10.2006;
15. Thereafter, the petitioner involved in P.R.No.21 of 2007 i.e., the present punishment roll in which the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service by the first respondent viz., the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion, Madurai by order dated 31.01.2008. This is a grave misconduct committed by the petitioner in the uniformed services which requires high discipline and integrity. _________ Page 19 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020
16. The above two delinquencies proves the misconduct of the petitioner and he is unfit to be in the uniformed services like the Police Department.
17) It can be seen from the above two delinquencies that the petitioner does not possess a good conduct which is required for a person serving in Uniformed Services such as Police Department. It is pertinent to note that the Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner since the prosecution has failed to prove the case but from the delinquency committed by the petitioner which has been proved in the enquiry and the petitioner was also given a chance to submit his explanation and only after a detailed enquiry, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service.
18) In regard to the first delinquency also, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the petitioner also submitted his response. Only based on the discreet enquiry it was found that the illicit intimacy between the petitioner and said Deepa (WSI) was found to be true and the enquiry report was marked as Prosecution Exhibit No.10. _________ Page 20 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020
19) In regard to the second delinquency, the enquiry was conducted in which five prosecution witnesses were examined and 7 documents were marked. The petitioner was also allowed to cross- examine the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner neither produced any defence witness nor marked any document even after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself by supplying a copy of the minutes of the Enquriy Officer and the petitioner has only submitted a representation dated 22.01.2008. Only after considering the materials before it and the representation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent has passed the order of dismissal from service on 31.01.2008.
20. In the view of the factual matrix of the case and for the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders passed by 1st respondent in PR.No.21/2007 dated 31.01.2008 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in C.No.A2/Appeal 7/2008 dated 05.04.2008 and further confirmed by the 3rd respondent in his Rc.No.153206/AP.3(1)/2015 _________ Page 21 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 dt.20.12.2016 and the 4th respondent in GO(D) No.959 Home (Pol.9) Department dated 13.08.2018 do not warrant any interference by this Court and the same are confirmed.
21. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.01.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No gpa _________ Page 22 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 To
1. The Commandant TSP VI Battalion Madurai
2. The Inspector General of Police Armed Police, Trichy
3. The Director General of Police Tamilnadu, Chennai – 4
4. The Secretary to Govt.
Home (Police IX) Dept Fort St.George, Chennai -9 _________ Page 23 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11075 of 2020 J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J gpa W.P.No.11075 of 2020 10.01.2025 _________ Page 24 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis