CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Government of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 1-10-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.21408 of 2006andMP No.2 of 2006Chandrakumar Thomas.. Petitionervs1.Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government Home (Police) Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.2.The Director General of Police Chennai 600 004... RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the recordsrelating to (1) charge memo in P.R.No.18/2005 (C.No.237920/GBV(2)/2004) dated 8.1.2005 of the second respondent and (2) LetterNo.124330/Pol.2/2005-1, dated 26.4.2006 of the first respondentand quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.M.RaviFor Respondents: Mr.R.Jothimanian Additional GovernmentPleaderORDERThis writ petition has been brought forth by the petitionerseeking a writ of certiorari to quash the charge memo inP.R.No.18/2005 (C.No.237920/GBV(2)/2004) dated 8.1.2005 and alsothe Letter No.124330/Pol.2/2005-1 dated 26.4.2006, of the firstrespondent.2.The affidavit in support of the petition and the counteraffidavit are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel oneither side. 3.The admitted facts are as follows:(a) The petitioner, on promotion as Deputy Superintendent ofPolice with effect from 8.3.2004, was serving as AssistantCommissioner of Police. A charge memo was served upon him for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the TamilNadu Civil Services (D. & A.) Rules dated 8.1.2005. Three chargeswere levelled against him which would run as follows:1.Gross neglect of duty and slack supervision in havingregistered a case in District Crime Branch Cr.No.9/2004under Section 403 and 406 IPC after a delay of one andhalf months on the complaint of Thiru K.T.Anbalagan and7 Trustees of Jai Bharath Charitable Trust, Chennai andalso having failed to take any interest in getting thelegal opinion quickly and taking legal action withoutloss of time.2.Reasonable conduct and dereliction of duty in havingfailed to arrest Thiru.A.Jayamohan, Ex. M.P., (A1) in acriminal case registered against him on 1.9.2004 inVellore DCB Cr.No.9/2004 under Sections 403 and 406 IPCfrom 15.9.2004 till he obtained anticipatory bail atHigh Court, Chennai on 10.11.2004.3.Indifferent and irresponsible attitude in havingfailed to arrest Thiru.A.Jayamohan, Ex.M.P., (A1) on29.10.2004 when he appeared in person before the HighCourt, Chennai in a contempt of Court case, even thoughprior information was given to you by the complainantand by your superiors to arrest the accused.(b) An explanation was tendered by him. Pending the same, hefiled W.P.No.8415/2005 on the file of this Court challenging thedisciplinary proceedings wherein an order was passed on 14.3.2005with a direction to the authority to complete the proceedingswithin a period of six months therefrom. In the course of thedetailed explanation, the petitioner has emphatically denied allthe charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who on enquiry,found the charge Nos.1 and 2 proved and the charge No.3 notproved. The enquiry report was also served upon him along with ashow cause notice calling for further representation thereon.While the matter stood thus, the petitioner has approached thisCourt challenging the original charge memo served upon him. 4.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, thelearned Counsel would submit that the charge memo has got to bequashed for the following reasons. (a) Firstly, this Court made an order in WP No.8415/2005 on14.3.2005, directing the authority to complete the enquiry withina period of six months, but not done so. The proceedings wereover after a long lapse of time. Under the circumstances, it is afit case where it has got to be quashed.(b) Secondly, at the time when the charge memo was issued tothe petitioner, the Inspector of Police was also served with thecharge memo for the same charges. As regards the Inspector ofPolice, he was absolved from his liability. Once the charge memoon the same facts was served upon different persons, the entireproceedings should have been conducted against both at the sametime, but not done so. In this case, the Inspector of Police,against whom charges were levelled, has been found not guilty, andhence, the entire proceedings have been vitiated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.Added further the learned Counsel that a reading of thecharge would clearly indicate that unless a severe punishment isto be awardable, no question of framing a charge under Rule 17(b)of the said Rule would arise; that a reading of the charge wouldalso indicate that it is a fit case where if at all a charge hasgot to be framed, it should have been done under Rule 17(a) of theService Rules, but not done so; that for all the above grounds,the initial proceedings and the following proceedings have got tobe quashed. 6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor onthe above contentions.7.After careful consideration of the rival submissions madeand looking into the materials available, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that the writ petition requires a very shortorder. It is not in controversy that a charge memo was servedupon the petitioner on 8.1.2005 levelling three charges as shownabove. True it is, there was a direction given by this Court on14.3.2005, when the entire charge memo was challenged by thepetitioner herein, directing the department to complete theenquiry within a period of six months. It is also clear that itis not done so. But, it does not mean that on that ground, theentire proceedings could be either quashed, or the charge memocould be quashed. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to pointout that the entire enquiry is over, and the report of the EnquiryOfficer along with the second show cause notice has been servedupon the petitioner. At that time, what is expected to be done bythe petitioner is to make his further representation; but, he hasnot done so. Now, he approached this Court by filing this writpetition. This Court is of the considered opinion that after anenquiry was over and after the report is also served upon thepetitioner along with the second show cause notice, for which heis to file his further representation, no question of quashing thecharge at this stage would arise. 8.Added further, the contention put forth by the learnedCounsel for the petitioner that the reading of the charge wouldindicate that it is a case where charge memo should have beenissued only under Rule 17(a) and not under 17(b) cannot becountenanced. This Court feels that it is a fit and proper casewhere the request of the petitioner has got to be denied. But, atthe same time, the petitioner is given liberty to raise all thecontentions before the forum where the matter is pending. It isbrought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is going toretire on attaining superannuation, on 30.9.2007. In suchcircumstances, it would be fit and proper to issue a direction tothe authority below to consider the representation of thepetitioner and if necessary, to make an enquiry over the same asearly as practicable preferably within a period of eight weeksherefrom. Accordingly, a direction is issued, and this writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP isclosed.nsv/Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Secretary to Government Home (Police) Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.2.The Director General of Police Chennai 600 004.+ 1 cc to Mr. M. Ravi, Advocate SR No. 61033+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras SR No.61284LA(CO)SR/5.10.2007WP No.21408 of 2006