High Court · 2024

W.P.No.13401 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 05.07.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P.No.13401 of 2024and W.M.P.No.14552 of 2024R.Sridharan... PetitionerVsThe District Collector,Cuddalore,Cuddalore District.... RespondentPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records, pertaining to the charges in proceedings having reference A2/30125/ 2019, dated 01.12.2023, on the file of the District Collector, Cuddalore and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.E.P.SenniyangiriFor Respondent : Mr.G.Velu Additional Government Pleader ORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo dated 01.12.2023 on the file of the respondent.Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 20242. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3. The petitioner, while he was working as Tahsildar, Virudhachalam Taluk, on 21.08.2018, received a telephonic information from the Revenue Divisional Officer to have vehicle check up. On the said information, the petitioner and his assistants were indulged in vehicle check up and intercepted a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 07 F 4270 and found that the vehicle was carrying river sand, illegally without any permission. Immediately, the vehicle was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam for further proceedings as per Rule 36A (1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rule. However, on a false complaint lodged as against the petitioner by one Poomalai, who claims to be the lessee of the lorry, FIR has been registered in Crime No.8 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe for releasing the vehicle. Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 20244. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2022, on the file of the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore. The entire proceeding was challenged before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14426 of 2023. This Court, by an order dated 12.07.2023, quashed the entire proceedings. The relevant portion of the order dated 12.07.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.14426 of 2023 is extracted hereunder:- “ 6.This Court, on perusing the sanction order dated 13.12.2019, finds that except the inaction on the part of the petitioner after seizing the vehicle on 21.08.2018, there is no other material to infer that he has kept the file for more than 50 days without initiating any further action in the matter expecting bribe. The subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority appears to be baseless. While the statement of the witness on the face of it being inadequate to arrive a prima facie satisfaction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 7 of P.C.Act. Sanction to prosecute has been granted without proper appreciation of records. The wisdom of authority normally cannot be questioned or interfered by the Court. In this case, this Court finds palpable misapplication of mind which warrants interference. Accordingly, the criminal prosecution against the petitioner herein stands quashed.”5. This Court observed that except the complaint from the said Poomalai, there is absolutely no material evidence to prove that the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 2024petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe to release the vehicle. On the very same set of charges, the petitioner was served with the impugned charge memo consisting of two charges as follows:- “Fw;wr;rhl;L vz; 1jpU/ Mu;/_jud; vd;gtu; 21/08/2021 md;W tpUj;jhryk; tl;lk;. bjhutY}h; fpuhkj;jpd; mUnf rhiyg;gupnrhjidapy; <Lgl;oUe;j nghJ. yhup vz; TN 46 F 4270 bfhz;l og;gu; yhupia jpUl;L kzy; bfhz;L bry;tjhf yhupia ifg;gw;wpr; brd;W tpUj;jhryk; tl;lhl;rpau; mYtyfj;jpy; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/ yhupia kPl;Lr;bry;y te;j jpU/f/g[{khiy vd;gtuplk;. tpUj;jhryk; tUtha; nfhl;lhl;rpau; mYtyfj;jpw;F brd;W yhupia kPl;Lr;bry;y jdf;F U:/15.000 /- jdpahf gzk; je;jhy; kl;Lnk nfhg;g[fis jahu; bra;J mDg;gp yhupia kPl;Lj; jUntd; vd; Twp U:/15.000 /- y";rk; nfl;ljhy;. jpU/f/g[{khiy vd;gtu; jpU/Mu;/_jud;. tl;lhl;rpau;. tpUj;jhryk; vd;gtu; kPJ flY}h; khtl;l CHy; jLg;g[ kw;Wk; fz;fhzpg;g[j;Jiw fhty; epiyaj;jpy; mspj;j g[fhupd; mog;gilapy; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;L ifJ bra;ag;gl;lJ/Fw;wr;rhl;L vz; 2jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsu; elj;ij tpjpfs; tpjp vz;/20 y; Twg;gl;Ls;s muRg;gzpahsUf;Fupa ek;gfj; jd;ik kw;Wk; fl;Lg;ghLfSf;F Kuzhf bray;gl;Ls;shu;/”Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 20246. A perusal of both the charges revealed that both are identical and the evidence, materials, witnesses are also one and the same. Where the Court in exercise of the Judicial Review finds out that acquittal in criminal proceeding was after full consideration of Evidence and Prosecution miserably failed to prove charges, the criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioner cannot be sustained, since no material evidence is available to prosecute the petitioner. That apart, the documents annexed along with the charge sheet is only FIR registered in Crime No.8 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore, on the complaint lodged by the said Poomalai dated 25.09.2018. The allegations in the complaint are vague and there is no material evidence to prove the said complaint. Therefore, this Court quashed the entire proceedings.7. Therefore, whether the charges in the departmental enquiry and criminal charge are identical, evidence, witness and circumstances are also same and the Courts quashed the entire proceedings, this Court can interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. That apart, in these kind of cases, the lorry owners normally make such allegations Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 2024without any proof in order to escape from the clutches of law.8. The present case is one alike that and made a complaint by the lessee of the lorry which was already confiscated by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the disciplinary proceeding which was initiated on the very same set of allegations cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.9. In view of the above, the charges in proceedings having reference A2/30125/2019, dated 01.12.2023, on the file of the respondent, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.05.07.2024Internet: YesIndex : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking ordermn Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 2024ToThe District Collector,Cuddalore,Cuddalore District.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 2024G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnW.P.No.13401 of 202405.07.2024Page 8 of 8

W.P.No.13401 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 05.07.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P.No.13401 of 2024and W.M.P.No.14552 of 2024R.Sridharan... PetitionerVsThe District Collector,Cuddalore,Cuddalore District.... RespondentPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records, pertaining to the charges in proceedings having reference A2/30125/ 2019, dated 01.12.2023, on the file of the District Collector, Cuddalore and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.E.P.SenniyangiriFor Respondent : Mr.G.Velu Additional Government Pleader ORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo dated 01.12.2023 on the file of the respondent.Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 20242. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 3. The petitioner, while he was working as Tahsildar, Virudhachalam Taluk, on 21.08.2018, received a telephonic information from the Revenue Divisional Officer to have vehicle check up. On the said information, the petitioner and his assistants were indulged in vehicle check up and intercepted a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 07 F 4270 and found that the vehicle was carrying river sand, illegally without any permission. Immediately, the vehicle was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam for further proceedings as per Rule 36A (1) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rule. However, on a false complaint lodged as against the petitioner by one Poomalai, who claims to be the lessee of the lorry, FIR has been registered in Crime No.8 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe for releasing the vehicle. Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 20244. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2022, on the file of the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore. The entire proceeding was challenged before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14426 of 2023. This Court, by an order dated 12.07.2023, quashed the entire proceedings. The relevant portion of the order dated 12.07.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.14426 of 2023 is extracted hereunder:- “ 6.This Court, on perusing the sanction order dated 13.12.2019, finds that except the inaction on the part of the petitioner after seizing the vehicle on 21.08.2018, there is no other material to infer that he has kept the file for more than 50 days without initiating any further action in the matter expecting bribe. The subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority appears to be baseless. While the statement of the witness on the face of it being inadequate to arrive a prima facie satisfaction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 7 of P.C.Act. Sanction to prosecute has been granted without proper appreciation of records. The wisdom of authority normally cannot be questioned or interfered by the Court. In this case, this Court finds palpable misapplication of mind which warrants interference. Accordingly, the criminal prosecution against the petitioner herein stands quashed.”5. This Court observed that except the complaint from the said Poomalai, there is absolutely no material evidence to prove that the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 2024petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bribe to release the vehicle. On the very same set of charges, the petitioner was served with the impugned charge memo consisting of two charges as follows:- “Fw;wr;rhl;L vz; 1jpU/ Mu;/_jud; vd;gtu; 21/08/2021 md;W tpUj;jhryk; tl;lk;. bjhutY}h; fpuhkj;jpd; mUnf rhiyg;gupnrhjidapy; <Lgl;oUe;j nghJ. yhup vz; TN 46 F 4270 bfhz;l og;gu; yhupia jpUl;L kzy; bfhz;L bry;tjhf yhupia ifg;gw;wpr; brd;W tpUj;jhryk; tl;lhl;rpau; mYtyfj;jpy; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/ yhupia kPl;Lr;bry;y te;j jpU/f/g[{khiy vd;gtuplk;. tpUj;jhryk; tUtha; nfhl;lhl;rpau; mYtyfj;jpw;F brd;W yhupia kPl;Lr;bry;y jdf;F U:/15.000 /- jdpahf gzk; je;jhy; kl;Lnk nfhg;g[fis jahu; bra;J mDg;gp yhupia kPl;Lj; jUntd; vd; Twp U:/15.000 /- y";rk; nfl;ljhy;. jpU/f/g[{khiy vd;gtu; jpU/Mu;/_jud;. tl;lhl;rpau;. tpUj;jhryk; vd;gtu; kPJ flY}h; khtl;l CHy; jLg;g[ kw;Wk; fz;fhzpg;g[j;Jiw fhty; epiyaj;jpy; mspj;j g[fhupd; mog;gilapy; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;L ifJ bra;ag;gl;lJ/Fw;wr;rhl;L vz; 2jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsu; elj;ij tpjpfs; tpjp vz;/20 y; Twg;gl;Ls;s muRg;gzpahsUf;Fupa ek;gfj; jd;ik kw;Wk; fl;Lg;ghLfSf;F Kuzhf bray;gl;Ls;shu;/”Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 20246. A perusal of both the charges revealed that both are identical and the evidence, materials, witnesses are also one and the same. Where the Court in exercise of the Judicial Review finds out that acquittal in criminal proceeding was after full consideration of Evidence and Prosecution miserably failed to prove charges, the criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioner cannot be sustained, since no material evidence is available to prosecute the petitioner. That apart, the documents annexed along with the charge sheet is only FIR registered in Crime No.8 of 2018, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Cuddalore, on the complaint lodged by the said Poomalai dated 25.09.2018. The allegations in the complaint are vague and there is no material evidence to prove the said complaint. Therefore, this Court quashed the entire proceedings.7. Therefore, whether the charges in the departmental enquiry and criminal charge are identical, evidence, witness and circumstances are also same and the Courts quashed the entire proceedings, this Court can interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority. That apart, in these kind of cases, the lorry owners normally make such allegations Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 2024without any proof in order to escape from the clutches of law.8. The present case is one alike that and made a complaint by the lessee of the lorry which was already confiscated by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the disciplinary proceeding which was initiated on the very same set of allegations cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.9. In view of the above, the charges in proceedings having reference A2/30125/2019, dated 01.12.2023, on the file of the respondent, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.05.07.2024Internet: YesIndex : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking ordermn Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 2024ToThe District Collector,Cuddalore,Cuddalore District.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13401 of 2024G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnW.P.No.13401 of 202405.07.2024Page 8 of 8