The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Vs G Vimala

G Vimala Inspector of Police, City Special Unit III, Vigilance and Anti - Corruption, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Alandur, Chennai 600 016

¶15

Respondent

¶16

PRAYER: Writ appeal filed to set aside the order dated 24.06.2026 passed in WMP No.26056 of 2026 in WP No.23976 of 2026.

¶17

For Appellants : Mr. T.Gowthaman Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. Mohammed Fayaz Ali Government Pleader

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

WA No.1748 of 2026

¶21

For Respondents : Mr. S.Ayyathurai

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶24

This writ appeal, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenges the interim order dated 24.06.2026, passed in WMP No.26056 of 2026 in WP No.23976 of 2026.

¶25

In the writ petition, the respondent has challenged the suspension order dated 17.06.2026. Learned Single Judge has stayed the suspension order holding that the Court was of the prima facie view that the impugned suspension order is motivated due to registration of first information report (FIR) against Tmt.K.Rajalakshmi, Inspector of Police, Anti Vice Squad, ITP-1, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, by the respondent herein.

¶26

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that FIR registered against Tmt.K.Rajalakshmi, Inspector of Police, Anti Vice Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

WA No.1748 of 2026

¶29

Squad, has nothing to do with the case on hand since the Department had received a complaint against the respondent and the competent authority directed factual verification of the same through the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Salem. A report dated 12.06.2026 was submitted, which disclosed sufficient materials warranting contemplation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 against the respondent.

¶30

Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that the learned Single Judge had granted time to the appellants till 3 p.m. on 24.06.2026 to produce the documents; however, the same were not produced, which resulted in the passing of the interim order.

¶31

Now, documents have been produced before us. However, without going into the merits of the case and expressing any opinion, we leave it open to the appellants to place all the documents before the learned Single Judge, as expeditiously as possible. The learned Single Judge may thereafter decide the issue appropriately.

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

WA No.1748 of 2026

¶35