Dismissed

M.Saravanan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC23 Jun 2015WP(MD)/10223/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the issuance of a charge memo under police service rules alleging temporary leave violation. The court rejected the defense that criminal and departmental proceedings cannot run simultaneously, emphasizing expeditious inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The Enforcement Officer directed to commence and complete the enquiry within one year with a maximum adjournment of two working days at any time.

M.Saravanan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 23.06.2015

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) No.10223 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶5

¶6

The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.

¶7

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned charge memo of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.F.1/Tha.Pa.14/2015 Rule 3(b), dated 3.3.2015, quash the same.

¶8

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned charge memo of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.F.1/Tha.Pa.14/2015 Rule 3(b), dated 3.3.2015 and quash the same.

¶9

By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶10

3.The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service on 01.12.2003, as Police Constable, in the Police Department and subsequently, he was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable and now he is working at Periyakulam Police Station. Due to pathway dispute, there was complaint and counter complaint, in which, a case in Crime No.513 of 2014, has been registered against the petitioner. Pursuant to which, the respondent has issued the impugned charge memo in proceedings Na.ka.No.F1/Tha.pa.14/2015, dated 3.3.2015, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1955, for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner is that after taking two days

¶11

¶12

temporary leave, he involved in a criminal case, which caused illrepute to the Police Department and he was asked to submit explanation within 15 days. Petitioner gave representation on 28.03.2015 in person to the respondent and the respondent has appointed and enquiry officer, to conduct enquiry.

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶14

The issue viz., criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings cannot go on simultaneously cannot be accepted. The departmental enquiry should be conducted on day-today basis.

¶15

In this case, the criminal proceedings are pending before the trial Court and the charge memo has been issued on 03.03.2015 and hence, I find no reason to stall the proceedings. The respondent is directed to commence and complete the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The enquiry shall not be adjourned beyond two working days at any point of time.

¶16

7.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶17

Sd/

¶18

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (T&P)

¶19

/TRUE COPY/

¶20

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶21

mpk

¶22

¶23

The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.

¶24

1 CC to Mr. K. Appadurai, ADV SR.No.32979

¶25

Writ Petition (MD) No.10223 of 2015

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JMN - 29.07.2015 - 2P - 4C

M.Saravanan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Saravanan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.M. Murugeswari Jeyasutha, Vs the Additional Assistant

V.Chandrakumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Dharmendiran, Vs the District Collector

E.Thangaraj, Vs the Senior Regional Managaer

S. Ravichandran, Vs the Tamilnadu Water Supply

M.Ravindran Mariappan, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.