J.V.M.Velumani dismissed a writ petition challenging a post-superannuation charge memo on grounds of jurisdiction, finding the petitioner failed with clean hands by participating in the subsequent domestic enquiry and approaching the court belatedly.
Petition dismissed; no costs; no consequential direction to retire or pay benefits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.983 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI W.P.(MD)No.983 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.5824 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.1028 of 2018
K.Murugapandian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, I/c Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Traffic, I/c Law and Order, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent made in his order in K1/PR.02/2016 dated 29.01.2016 and quash the same as it is without jurisdiction and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner retire from service and pay all the retirement benefits and other monitory benefits including the arrears of salary from the date of suspension within the period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand, Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the charge memo dated 29.01.2016 issued to him and also seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to allow him to retire from service and pay all the retirement and other monetary benefits.
2.According to the petitioner, he attained the age of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ superannuation on 31.12.2015. The impugned charge memo was issued
1/4
W.P.(MD)No.983 of 2018
to the petitioner on 29.01.2016, after his date of superannuation i.e., on 31.12.2015 and served on him on 02.02.2016. The second respondent is not having jurisdiction to issue charge memo to the petitioner. The second respondent is subordinate to the first respondent. The first respondent is the Disciplinary Authority and the first respondent alone has power to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. In addition to the above grounds, the petitioner has raised various grounds on merits with regard to validity of charge memo.
2/4
W.P.(MD)No.983 of 2018
proceedings in No.K1/PR.02/2016, dated 29.01.2016. In the W.P.(MD) No.18381 of 2017 the petitioner has stated that the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, the first respondent therein, is the disciplinary authority. From this contradictory statement of the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner has not stated, who is the disciplinary authority. On the other hand, Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate submitted that the respondents in the counter affidavit, has stated that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Traffic, Tirunelveli City, as well as the incharge of the Law and Order, Tirunelveli City, is the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The second respondent in both the writ petitions is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and he has jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
am
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, I/c Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3/4
W.P.(MD)No.983 of 2018
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Traffic, I/c Law and Order, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.
+1 CC to M/s.ANANTH C.RAJESH, Advocate ( SR-95784[F] dated 04/11/2019 )
+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-96043[F] dated 05/11/2019 )
W.P.(MD)No.983 of 2018 04.11.2019
KM/(26.11.2019) 4P 5C
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Writ petition challenging a charge memo is maintainable after the conclusion of the domestic enquiry.
Whether the petitioner approached the court with clean hands by suppressing the fact that domestic enquiry was completed.
K.Murugapandian
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Traffic, Tirunelveli City
V.M.Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
