Disposed

C.Krishnamoorthy, v. the Supdt. of Police

Madras HC1 Aug 2014WP(MD)/12029/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction to initiate departmental action against a police officer. The Court, without going into merits, directed the Superintendent of Police to consider the representation on merits after issuing notice to both parties, to be completed within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the representation on merits after issuing notice to the parties and proceed accordingly within eight weeks.

C.Krishnamoorthy, Vs the Supdt. of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.08.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P(MD)No.12029 of 2014

¶6

C.Krishnamoorthy .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶9

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Records, Kanyakumari District.

¶10

3.The Inspector of Police, Eraniel Poli Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

4.John Bosco,

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Rajakkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take departmental action against the fourth respondent on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.D7/128/Pothu/Mahu Aaha/Kumari 2013 dated 26.07.2013 within a stipulated period and to pass such further or other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Rajakumar

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take departmental action against the fourth respondent on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the second respondent dated 26.07.2013 within a stipulated period.

¶19

Heard Mr.C.Rajakumar, learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner and Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents.

¶20

¶21

By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate, on instruction from the first respondent, that already disciplinary action has been initiated against the fourth respondent under Rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules and the fourth respondent is not working as the Inspector of Police as described in the writ petition but he is only Sub Inspector of Police and he is not working in Eraniel Police Station and he has been transferred to Rajakkamangalam Police Station.

¶23

5.In any event, there is a report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and it is not known that disciplinary action is taken pursuant to such report in which serious allegations have been made.

¶24

6.Without going to the merits of the representation made nor expressing any opinion on the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the District Crime Records, Kanyakumari District, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation on merits and in accordance with law after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and proceed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶25

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The Superintendent of Police,Nagercoil,Kanyakumari District.

¶32

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

¶33

District Crime Records,Kanyakumari District.

¶34

3.The Inspector of Police,Eraniel Poli Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶35

4.John Bosco,The Inspector of Police,

¶36

Rajakkamangalam Police Station,Kanyakumari District

¶37

+One cc to M/s.C.Rajakumar, Advocate, SR.No.42911

¶38

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.42992 ses

¶39

RL/7c – 12/8/2014

¶40

WP(MD)No.12029 of 2014

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

01.08.2014

C.Krishnamoorthy, v. the Supdt. of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Krishnamoorthy, v. the Supdt. of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram City Union Vs the Superintendent

J. Sasikala Vs the Commissioner

Tmt. P. K. Kannammal Vs the District Revenue Officer

B.Vasudevan, Vs the Executive Officer

S. Kannan, Vs the Nodel Officer

A.Suresh, Vs the Director General of Police