IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.10.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN W.P.No.25023 of 2008 S.P.Senthil Kumar .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Armed Force Head Office, Locus Garden, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 3. The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, IX Battalion, Manimuthur, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondent Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.07.2008 and thereby direct the respondents to reinstate him into service and pay back all the service and monitory benefit with effect from 23.04.2007. For petitioner : Mr.Muralidaran For respondents : Ms.Lita Srinivasan, Govt. Advocate ***** O R D E R Writ Petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.07.2008 and thereby direct the respondents to reinstate him into service and pay back all the service and monitory benefit with effect from 23.04.2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. When the petitioner was working as Grade II Police Constable, he was suspended from service on 3.9.2006. Thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated and enquiry officer was appointed and after due enquiry, he was removed from service by order dated 4.5.2007 with effect from 23.04.2007. 3. Aggrieved by the order of removal dated 4.5.2007, he filed appeal petition dated 11.02.2007. But the same was treated as mercy petition by the first respondent herein by order dated 19.8.2005 and the mercy petition was rejected. Thereafter, the criminal court by order dated 12.8.2008, acquitted the writ petitioner from the charges levelled against him and on the basis of the acquittal order, the petitioner submitted a representation on 31.7.2008 to the second respondent herein to consider his grievance and the same has not been disposed of yet. Hence, the writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 5. I find from the documents filed in the typed set of papers, I find that against the order of removal dated 4.5.2007, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 11.6.2007 to the second respondent herein. But, curiously, the first respondent treated the appeal petition as a mercy petition and rejected the same. 6. In the light of the above facts, the writ petitioner has to only challenge the order dated 19.5.2008 passed by the first respondent, instead of submitting another representation. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost. 8. However, liberty is given to the writ petitioner to challenge the order dated 19.5.2008 passed by the first respondent. vaan Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Armed Force Head Office, Locus Garden, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 3. The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, IX Battalion, Manimuthur, Tirunelveli District. + 1 cc to Mr. M. V. Muralidaran, Advocate SR No. 60369 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.60631 W.P.No.25023 of 2008 NM(CO) SR/18.11.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/