Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary to Govt. (Home) – Appellant
Versus
Promod Kumar IPS & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8427-8428 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12112-12113 of 2017)
Decided On : 21-08-2018
(b) All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 – Rule 8 – Expression “draw up or cause to be drawn up” the charge memo – Approval of disciplinary authority required for initiation of the proceeding as well as issue of charge memo – Article 311 (2), Constitution of India – Charge memo has to be drawn up or caused to be drawn up by disciplinary authority – High Court decision quashing charge memo upheld – Liberty given to issue charge memo afresh after approval of disciplinary authority. (Para 17, 18, 19)
(2014) 1 SCC 351 – Relied upon; (1875) 1 Ch.D. 426 – Referred
(c) All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 – Rule 3(2) – Suspension – Respondent under suspension pursuant to his detention for more than 48 hours for more than six years – Criminal court while granting bail giving liberty to investigating agency to approach the Court in case respondent indulged in tampering with the evidence – No complaint by CBI – Such protracted suspension on apprehension of tampering with evidence disapproved – Suspension revoked – Appellant given liberty to post respondent in a non-sensitive post. (Para 21, 22, 23)
(2015) 7 SCC 291 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The first Respondent filed O.A. in the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging his suspension and the charge memo. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. by revoking his suspension. The Tribunal refused to set aside the charge memo.
The first Respondent filed Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the judgment of the Tribunal in respect of the refusal to quash the charges framed against him. The Appellant - State of Tamil Nadu filed Writ Petition assailing the judgment of the Tribunal regarding the direction to reinstate the first Respondent by revoking his suspension.
The High Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal revoking the suspension of the first Respondent. The High Court further quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Appellant against the first Respondent by declaring the charge memo as non est in law.
Finding of the Court:
Suspension of respondent and the charge memo need to be quashed. However, appellant should be given liberty to issue fresh charge memo after approval of disciplinary authority.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
L. Nageswara Rao, J.
Leave granted.
1. The first Respondent filed O.A. No.165 of 2016 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench challenging his suspension and the charge memo dated 29.10.2013. The Tribunal allowed O.A. No.165 of 2016 filed by the first Respondent by revoking his suspension. The Tribunal refused to set aside the charge memo. The first Respondent filed Writ Petition No.39989 of 2016 in the High Court of Madras challenging the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No.165 of 2016 in respect of the refusal to quash the charges framed against him. The Appellant - State of Tamil Nadu filed Writ Petition No.38696 of 2016 assailing the judgment of the Tribunal regarding the direction to reinstate the first Respondent by revoking his suspension. The High Court by its judgment dated 12.01.2017 upheld the judgment of the Tribunal revoking the suspension of the first Respondent. The High Court further quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Appellant against the first Respondent by declaring the charge memo dated 29.10.2013 as non est in law. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the Appellant has approached this Court by filing the above appeal.
2. The first Respondent is a member of the Indian Police Service and was allotted to the State of Tamil Nadu. He was posted as Inspector General of Police, West Zone, Coimbatore from 10.09.2008 to 19.02.2010. During his tenure in the said post, an FIR was registered against K.Mohanraj, K. Kathiravan and Kamalavalli Arumugam who were the Directors of M/s Paazee Forex Trading India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “M/s Paazee Forex”) by the Central Crime Branch, Tirupur under Section 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). M/s Paazee Forex was alleged to have cheated a large number of depositors to the tune of Rs.1,210 crores. The Directors of the company were granted anticipatory bail on 08.10.2009. Crime No.3068 of 2009 was registered under Section 365 IPC on 09.12.2009 pursuant to a written complaint that one of the Directors of M/s Paazee Forex, Ms. Kamalavalli Arumugam, was missing since 08.12.2009. The missing Director Kamalavalli Arumugam submitted a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupur that she was kidnapped on 08.12.2009. She stated in the complaint that three police officials and a private individual extorted Rs. 3 Crores approximately for her release. The investigation of Crime No.26 of 2009 registered against M/s Paazee Forex on 24.09.2009 was transferred to the CB-CID, Vellore on 23.03.2010. Crime No.3068 of 2009 pertaining to the kidnapping of Kamalavalli Arumugam was also transferred to the CB-CID, Vellore.
3. An association of investors of M/s Paazee Forex filed Criminal O.P. No.5356 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to transfer the investigation to the CBI. Mr.K. Loganathan, an investor in M/s Paazee Forex filed Criminal O.P. No.2691 of 2011 seeking transfer of investigation of Crime No.26 of 2009 from the State police to the CBI since he apprehended that the State police was protecting the Directors of M/s Paazee Forex and delaying the disbursal of money payable to the depositors.
4. In the meanwhile, the first Respondent was interrogated in connection with Crime No.3068 of 2009 on 06.04.2011. On investigation, it was found that Respondent No.1 abused his official position as Inspector General of Police and inter alia, was involved in extorting money from the Directors of M/s Paazee Forex and the delay in the repayment of money to the depositors of M/s Paazee Forex. He was arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 26 of 2009 by the Special Judge, CBI, Coimbatore on 28.02.2012.
5. By an order dated 19.04.2011, the High Court directed the transfer of Crime No.3 of 2010 (originally Crime No.26 of 2009) registered against M/s Paazee Forex and Crime No.3068 of 2009 originating from the kidnapping of Kama
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
