K.Palanivelu v. The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch/II, Egmore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.08.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No. 6465 of 2007andM.P.No. 1 of 2007K.Palanivelu.. PetitionerVersusThe State represented byThe Sub-Inspector of Police,Central Crime Branch/II,Egmore,Chennai- 600 008.(X Crime No. 630 of 2000).. RespondentPetition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the recordsand quash all further proceedings of the charge sheet filed beforethe Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,in C.C.No. 8052of 2006 in X Crime No.630/2000 on the file of the respondent.For Petitioner : Mr.S.KumaradevanFor Respondent : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)ORDERThe petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition toquash the proceedings in C.C.No.8052 of 2006 on the file of theAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.2.The prosecution case is that one Mr.M.Rajeswaran,Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Annasalai,Chennai-2 has made a complaint against the (1) petitioner/Bhaskaran(2) K. Palanivel, Foreman, Grade II, Tamilandu Electricity Board,Villivakkam and (3) S. Kalyanam, Commercial Inspector, TamilnaduElectricity Board, Royapuram, Chennai-13 before the Central CrimeBranch, Chennai city, Chennai.3.The crime branch, after receipt of the said complaintregistered a case in Crime No.630 of 2000 on an alleged offence under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sections 419, 420 r/w 109 of I.P.C. The respondent policeinvestigated the matter and filed a final report under Section 173(2)of Cr.P.C before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai-8. The final report reveals that in the year 1994,based on the Khalid Committee and Supreme Court orders, temporarylabourers were made permanent labourers. The contract labourer,C.Karunakaran, who is an accident victim at the work spot, was askedto appear for the interview on 27.12.1994. That being so, theaccused-1, with the help of accused A2 and A3, who were holdingimportant position in C.I.T.U and also in the selection committeepanel, by way of impersonation etc., got appointment in the place ofC. Karunakaran and cheated the complainant.4.Further, the accused No.1, noted above, who was working asa casual labourer presented himself as Karunakaran in order to obtainregular employment in the place of Karunakaran, who lost his vision,blurred in an electrical accident in the year 1992 and the accused-1,being a contract labourer, in order to get himself regularised,attended the interview in the year 1994 as Karunakaran. However,subsequently, from 03.01.1997, he did not attend the job. Later, ashis name was recommended and enlisted as per the Khalid Commissionreport as a contract labourer, he got absorbed as helper in regularcadre in his own name.5.The accused A2 and A3, knowingly abetted the act ofimpersonation by accused A1, enabled him to secure the appointment inthe place of genuine candidate, Karunakaran, who did not opt toattend the interview due to his vision, affected in an electricalaccident. Thus, the accused A1, appears to have made himself, liablefor an offence punishable under Section 419 I.P.C for impersonatinghimself as Karunakaran and under Section 420 I.P.C for cheating theTamilandu Electricity Board. While accused A2 and A3 appeared tohave committed an offence under Section 419, 420 and r/w 109 of I.P.Cfor having abetted A1 in securing the employment. In the said case,A1 to A3 were arrested and remanded to Judicial custody. They werelodged in Central Prison, Chennai. This is the prosecution case.6. The petitioner has alleged in his petition that on01.08.2000, the Superintending Engineer, Chennai ElectricityDistribution Circle, North, gave a Complaint to the Respondent Policestating that on 27.12.1994, the Original Certificate and ServiceCertificate were issued by the Territorial Assistant Engineer forconsidering C.Karunakaran, for the purpose of regular appointmentbased on the Justice Khalid Commission Report. The said Karunakarandid not attend the interview stating that some persons threatened himnot to attend the interview. hereafter, he came to know that A1,P.Bhaskaran joined duty as Helper in his place by impersonation. Thesaid P.Bhaskaran worked as regular Helper in the name of Karunakaran.It was verified by the authorities in the year 1997 and an enquiry of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vigilance also held. The petitioner further alleged that he has beenimplicated by the respondent on the allegation that he was aSelection Committee Member representing CITU and had wronglyidentified P.Bhaskaran as C.Karunakaran with ulterior motive. Eventhough, the occurrence took place in the year 1994, the complaint wasgiven only in the year 2000 and Charge Sheet was filed only on19.12.2006 in C.C.No.8052 of 2006 before the Learned AdditionalMetropolitan Magistrate Court. 7.That the accused A1 noted above who was working as a CasualLabourer presented himself as Karunakaran in order to obtain regularemployment in the place of Karunakaran who lost his vision blurred inan electrical accident in the year 1992 and the accused being thecontract labourer in order to get himself regularised attended theinterview in the year 1994 as Karunakaran. However, subsequently from03.01.1997 he did not attend the job. Later as his name wasrecommended and enlisted as per the Khalid Commission Report as acontract labourer he got absorbed as Helper in regular cadre in hisown name.8. The accused A2 and A3 knowingly abetted the act ofimpersonation by accused A1 enabled him to secure the appointment inthe place of genuine candidate Karunakaran who did not opt to attendthe interview due to his vision affected in an electrical accident. 9. Thus the accused A1 appears to have made himself liable foran offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC for impersonatinghimself as Karunakaran and under Section 420 of IPC for cheating themanagement. While accused A2 and A3 appeared to have committed anoffence under Section 419, 420 r/w 109 of IPC for having abetted A1in securing the employment. 10.The petitioner submits that for the same set of charges thedepartment of Electricity also framed the following charges againsthim. "That Thiru.K.Palanivelu, Foreman II Grade, TamilnaduElectricity Board Press, who was nominated as a SelectionCommittee Member, representing CITU Union, Board's MemoNo.036480/R1/2/90-32, dated 06.08.1991. has wronglyidentified Thiru.P.Bhaskaran, as Thiru.C.Karunakaran, whowas the actual candidate during the interview held on28.12.1994 with a malafide intention to get employment inthe Board to Thiru.P.Bhaskaran, in place of ThiruC.Karunakaran, by way of impersonation. The above actconstitutes mis-conduct as per Clause 30(iv) of TamilNadu Electricity Standing Orders applicable to theWorkman engaged in non-clerical department." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.The said charge memo issued by the Department on 22.10.2000and the petitioner gave a reply to the said charge memo and finalorder passed by the authorities on 10.07.2002 and gave a punishmentof "Stoppage of next increment for three years withcumulative effect including the period if any spent onleave".The said order challenged by the petitioner before the Chairman ofElectricity Board and the appeal also dismissed on 19.03.2003 in PerB.B. (Chairman) No.56. Thereafter the petitioner did not file anyappeal against the said order. Now the respondent police filed theabove said charge sheet before the A.C.M.M., Chennai-8. 12.The petitioner has further alleged that on the same set ofcharges, an enquiry was conducted by the Department and he wasawarded a punishment for violating the Board Standing Orders manualapplicable for workmen and he was punished by his superiors by way ofstoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Hence,the petitioner contends that the respondent need not implicate thepetitioner for the same set of charges. Further, the petitioner hasalleged that the said Karunakaran or the accused A1 Bhaskaran and anyother person mentioned in the FIR have not spoken about thepetitioners involvement in this case. 13.After perusal of the prosecution case and contentions ofthe petitioner, and verification of the typed set of papers andarguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and theargument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, theCourt is of the view that the petitioner was punished by thecomplainant/Department by way of disciplinary proceedings, and thepunishment was stoppage of increments for three years with cumulativeeffect. This is a departmental action, but regarding criminal cases,the Court is the competent forum to determine the genuineness of thecase. So, the C.C.No.8052 of 2006 has to be tried. Therefore, theCriminal Original Petition No.6465 of 2007 has got to be dismissed.Accordingly, it is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous petitionis closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrarmps/mra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Sub-Inspector of Police,Central Crime Branch/II,Egmore,Chennai- 600 008.2.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104.Crl.O.P.No. 6465 of 2007andM.P.No. 1 of 2007KJ {CO}TP/30.10.2009.