Chennai: The Madras high court has declined to interfere with the order of the commissioner of police, Madurai, imposing penal rent of Rs 2.23 lakh on a policeman for his overstay in the police quarters even during transfer and after retirement.
Dismissing a petition from T.V.Devarajan, Justice S.M.Subramaniam said, "In view of the facts and circumstances, this court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief as sought for in the petition".
Senior counsel Ajmal Khan, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension in September 2007. Subsequently, he attained the age of superannuation on July 31, 2008, and on account of the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal case for the alleged acceptance of bribe, he was not allowed to retire from service. The CoP, Madurai, issued a notice calling upon him to vacate the quarters and he submitted a reply stating that he was not allowed to retire from service and therefore, the employer-employee relationship was retained and accordingly, he was entitled to continue in quarters allotted to him, Ajmal Khan added.
The CoP, Madurai, in his counter affidavit submitted that the petitioner was transferred to Ramnad district in 2006 on administrative grounds and vacated the quarters only on November 25, 2013. Thus, the penal rent of Rs 2.23 lakh for this period was ordered to be recovered from his salary on installment basis, he added.
The judge said it was an admitted fact that the petitioner was in occupation of the quarters in Madurai district. Further, he was transferred to Ramnad district on September 8, 2006. He was removed from service on April 14, 2008. Thereafter, he was reinstated into service only on June 24, 2010. It was brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner had received the house rent allowance while he was working in Ramnad district. One hand, he occupied the quarters in Madurai city and on the other hand, he received the house rent allowance in Ramnad district. Undoubtedly, such an action of the petitioner was a misconduct and illegal, the judge added.
The judge said in view of the legal principles settled in this regard, the interpretation offered by the senior counsel that the petitioner, even after the actual date of retirement was continuing in suspension cannot be accepted. The employer-employee relationship was maintained beyond the date of retirement only for the limited purpose of continuance of disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal case and till the conclusion of these proceedings. However, even after the conclusion of these proceedings there was no possibility of reinstatement of the petitioner for the purpose of allowing him to perform his official duties and responsibilities. This being the constructive interpretation to be adopted, the very arguments advanced by the senior counsel in this regard deserve no merit consideration, the judge added.
