Dismissed¶70

A.Kannadasan v. the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government

Madras HC12 Jun 2025WP/20494/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of police charge memorandum; departmental disciplinary proceedings; prematurity of judicial review at pre-evidence stage; charge memo issued after delay of over nine years on alleged 2016 delinquencies; allegation of bias to deny promotion; service in Anti-Video Piracy Cell, Tiruchirappalli; direction to conclude enquiry within four months; Article 226 Constitution of India; Certiorarified Mandamus; Madras High Court; WP No. 20494 of 2025; WMP No. 23142 of 2025; C. Kumarappan J.; decided 12-06-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed, coupled with a direction to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law within four months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶70

A.Kannadasan Vs the Special Commissioner and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned charge memorandum dated 25.02.2025 - issued on alleged delinquencies of 2016 when the petitioner was at the verge of promotion, and allegedly biased so as to deny promotion - is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶68

Ratio / Principle

Unless the documents relied on by the respondents are marked and the witnesses examined, it is too premature for this Court to go into the factual aspects of the charge memorandum.

¶59

Key takeaways

The Court does not find any merits in the writ petition; it is dismissed with the above directions, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C. Kumarappan, J.) - Writ petition under Article 226 for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash a Memo of Charges dated 25.02.2025 issued in Ka.No.A3/0839/2025 by the Inspector General of Police (Crime) (third respondent) - Petitioner, a police official, contended the charges pertained to alleged delinquencies of 2016, were issued at the verge of promotion, and were biased so as to deny him his legitimate promotion; he claimed to have served in the Anti-Video Piracy Cell, Tiruchirappalli for only 20 days - Held: the respondents rely on as many as 16 witnesses and 17 documents, and unless those documents are marked and the witnesses examined, it is too premature for the Court to go into the factual aspects of the charge memorandum; judicial review will not lie at this stage - However, to address the petitioner's concern of a delay of more than nine years, the respondents were directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings on their own merits and in accordance with law within four months from receipt of a copy of the order - Writ petition dismissed with the above directions; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

WP No. 20494 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-06-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

WP No. 20494 of 2025 AND

¶7

WMP NO. 23142 OF 2025

¶8

A.Kannadasan S/o. Arumugam, No.AE-1, Police Quarters, Kadampadi, Nagapattinam-611 001.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶12

2.The Director General of Police Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 3.The Inspector General of Police (Crime), Old Commissioner's Office Campus,

¶13

1/7

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

WP No. 20494 of 2025

¶16

Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶17

4.The Inspector General of Police (Administration), Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶18

5.The Superintendent of Police Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam 611 001.

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

PRAYER: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Memo of Charges issued in Ka.No.A3/0839/2025, Tha. Pa.No.03/2025 Section 3(b) dated 25.02.2025 by the Inspector General of Police (Crime) Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004 the 3rd Respondent herein and to quash the same.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.S.Jhothivani For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Sasikumar, Government Advocate For R1 To R5

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging the memo of charges dated 25.02.2025 issued by the third

¶24

respondent/Inspector General of Police (Crime), the petitioner had filed the

¶25

2/7

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

WP No. 20494 of 2025

¶28

present Writ Petition.

¶29

Mr.R.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf

¶30

of the respondents 1 to 5. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is

¶31

taken up for disposal at the time of admission stage itself.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently submit that at

¶33

the verge of promotion, the impugned charge memorandum dated 25.02.2025

¶34

was issued in respect of alleged delinquencies which was happened in the year

¶35

2016. It is the further specific submission of the petitioner, that the impugned

¶36

charge memorandum has been given in a biased manner only to deny the

¶37

petitioner's legitimate promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶38

further submit that in the Anti-Video Piracy Cell, Tiruchirappalli, he had served

¶39

only for a period of 20 days, and therefore, he submitted that the charge is

¶40

liable to be quashed.

¶41

4. Per contra, Mr.R.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing

¶42

3/7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

WP No. 20494 of 2025

¶45

for the respondents 1 to 5, strongly opposed the contentions made by the

¶46

learned counsel for the petitioner, and submitted that it is too premature to

¶47

interfere with the charge memorandum, and the charge would be proved only by

¶48

letting in evidence through examining the witnesses. Therefore, he submitted

¶49

that under the judicial review, at this stage, this Court could not interfere with

¶50

the charge memorandum.

¶51

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

¶52

learned counsel on either side, and perused the materials available on record.

¶53

6. It is the specific concern of the petitioner's counsel that, only to deny

¶54

his due promotion, the charge memorandum was issued with a delay of more

¶55

than 9 years. However, looking at the charge memorandum, it is seen that it

¶56

contains certain derelictions of duty of the petitioner and the respondents also

¶57

relied as many as 16 witnesses and 17 documents. In the considered opinion of

¶58

this Court, unless these documents are marked and witnesses are examined, it is

¶59

too premature for this Court to go into the factual aspects of the charge

¶60

4/7

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

WP No. 20494 of 2025

¶63

memorandum. However, the concern of the petitioner could be addressed by

¶64

directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a

¶65

reasonable time.

¶66

7. In such view of the matter, though this Court does not find any merits

¶67

in the writ petition, would like to issue a direction to the respondents to

¶68

complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) months from the date of

¶69

receipt of a copy of this order.

¶70

8. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with the above directions.

¶71

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶72

12-06-2025

¶73

Index:Yes/No

¶74

Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No jd

¶75

Note: Issue order copy on 13.06.2025.

¶76

5/7

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

WP No. 20494 of 2025

¶79

¶80

The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶81

2.The Director General of Police Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶82

3.The Inspector General of Police (Crime), Old Commissioner's Office Campus, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶83

4.The Inspector General of Police (Administration), Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 5.The Superintendent of Police Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam 611 001.

¶84

6/7

¶85

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 20494 of 2025

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

WP No. 20494 of 2025

¶90