the writ petition is allowed and the impugned suspension order dated 03.05.2026 stands quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner and admit him into service forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02-07-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
WP No. 25059 of 2026 and
WMP No. 27352 OF 2026
G.Ramajayam
(H.C.No.159)
Son of Ganapathy
Special Sub Inspector of Police
Plot No.22, Radha Nagar 1st Main Road Thimmavaram Village
Chengalpattu – 603 101.
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Director General of Police
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore Chennai 04.
2. The Inspector General of Police (North Zone) St Thomas Mount, Alandur Chennai – 16.
3. The Superintendent Of Police
Chengalpattu District Collectorate Campus
Chengalpattu – 603 111.
..Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in C.No.J1/2205/2026, D.O.No.210/2026 dated 03.05.2026 and quash the same and pass orders.
For Petitioner: Mr.C. Sivakumar
For Respondents: Mr.K.Sathish
Government Advocate [R1 to R3]
ORDER
The writ petition is filed seeking to quash the records of the 3rd respondent in C.No.J1/2205/2026.D.O.No.210/2026 dated 03.05.2026.
2. The petitioner herein is working as Special Sub Inspector of Police at Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station. The petitioner would submit that based on a civil dispute, his sister-in-law namely Vasuki had filed a case before the
Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station against her neighbours namely Nisha, Rafia,
Kaja Mohideen and others on 02.05.2026, and same was registered as Crime No.310 of 2026. As a counter blast, on the same day, the said Kaja Mohideen had registered an FIR in Crime No.313 of 2026 before the same police station, in which Vasuki, Ramajayam’s wife (Petitioner’s wife), Jeyaraj, Anumandhai Sathya and 5 others were shown as accused. While so, on the next date i.e., 03.05.2026, the 3rd respondent issued a suspension order to the petitioner, stating that he had involved in a criminal offence and a case was registered in Crime No.313/2026 on the file of the Chengalpattu Police Station.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that he had not involved in the crime as alleged in the suspension order. Moreover, he was on duty at the time of occurrence. That apart, both the complainants have moved anticipatory bails and pursuant to the compromise entered between them, the District and Sessions Judge, had granted anticipatory bail to both the parties on 14.05.2026. The petitioner would plead that pursuant to the compromise entered between the parties, both the FIRs would be closed as mistake of fact. Despite the same, the
3rd respondent did not consider to revoke the suspension order issued to him.
Challenging the impugned suspension order, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials on record.
5. The impugned suspension order has been issued only on the ground that the petitioner had involved in a criminal offence. The genesis for the issuance of impugned suspension order is the two FIRs; one in Cr.No.310 of 2026 based on the complaint lodged by Vasuki, the petitioner’s sister in law against Nisha, Rafia, and Kaja Mohideen, and the other FIR is the one registered against Vasuki, the petitioner’s wife (whose name has been entered as Ramanujam’s wife), Jeyaraj, Anumandhai Sathya and 5 others. The papers annexed would show that the accused in both the FIRs have sought for anticipatory bail from the Vacation Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. The complainant in Cr.No.313 of 2026, namely Haja Mohideen, had appeared before the Court and filed an affidavit to that effect that no such incident had occurred and that he had never preferred a complaint and that a false case has been registered against the petitioner’s family members. Further, the other complainants namely the wife and daughter of Kaja Mohideen have also appeared before the Sessions Court and stated that the incident alleged has not taken place.
6. Once the complainants themselves have appeared before the Court of law and stated that the alleged incident had not taken place, the action of the respondents in not revoking the suspension order, smacks of malafides and therefore, the impugned suspension order cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned suspension order dated 03.05.2026 stands quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner and admit him into service forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
DS
To:
1. The Director General of Police
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore Chennai 04.
2. The Inspector General of Police (North Zone) St Thomas Mount, Alandur Chennai – 16.
3. The Superintendent Of Police
Chengalpattu District Collectorate Campus
Chengalpattu – 603 111. P.T.ASHA J.
DS
WP No. 25059 of 2026 and WMP NO. 27352 of 2026
02-07-2026
