In a writ petition regarding delayed disciplinary proceedings, the Madras High Court directed the non-cooperating petitioner to assist the enquiry. The court compelled the Disciplinary Authority to complete the inquiry within four weeks.
Direction to petitioner to cooperate; direction to respondent to complete enquiry within four weeks.
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.No.33286 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.33286 of 2023
R.Xavier Rajamani ... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Charged Memo dated 12.06.2021 issued by the third respondent
1/5
W.P.No.33286 of 2023
herein in Ta.Ko.En.22/Ta.P (Ki)/2021) and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.M.Bindran Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
For his involvement in a criminal case, certain charges were levelled against the petitioner under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 on 12.06.2021. Complaining that there is no progress in the investigation, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though many of the witnesses including the Investigation Officer has been examined by the Enquiry Officer, thereafter there is no much progress. The only ground raised in the present writ petition is, there is an inordinate delay in completing the Disciplinary proceedings.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that enquiry is being prolonged only owing to the petitioner in
W.P.No.33286 of 2023
view of his non-cooperation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though he had sought for quashing of the charge memo, he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Disciplinary Authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated time. He further submitted that he would cooperate in the Disciplinary Proceedings.
5. In the light of the submissions made, there shall be a direction to
the petitioner herein to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge memo dated 12.06.2021 and consequently, fourth respondent shall complete the enquiry, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not cooperate with the enquiry, the fourth respondent is at liberty to conclude the proceedings in his absence by recording his absence.
6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
27.11.2023
Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No
3/5
W.P.No.33286 of 2023
gpa
To
W.P.No.33286 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH,J.
gpa
W.P.No.33286 of 2023
27.11.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a direction can be issued to the petitioner to cooperate with ongoing disciplinary proceedings to prevent inordinate delay.
Whether disciplinary authorities are at liberty to conclude proceedings in the absence of a non-cooperating petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Xavier Rajamani
The Director General of Police Office of the Director General of Police Chennai
The Commissioner of Police O/o.Commissioner of Police Vepery, Chennai
The Deputy Commissioner of Police Law & Order, Kilpauk Zone Chennai
The Assistant Commissioner Ayanavaram Zone, Chennai
M.S. RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
