SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Mad) 371

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Karunanidhi
Versus
The Director General of Police & Another
W.P.No. 13889 & 34242 of 2013 & M.P.No. 2 & 1 of 2013
Decided on: 18-02-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:Venkatramani, Senior Counsel for M/s. M. Muthappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:RM. Muthukumar, Government Advocate.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitations and procedures outlined in the TNPSS (D & A) Rules, particularly Rule 15-A(1), and upheld the petitioner's entitlement to promotion after being acquitted in criminal cases and exonerated in the departmental enquiry.

Headnote:

Police - Departmental Enquiry - TNPSS (D & A) Rules - Rule 15-A(1) - The court quashed the show cause notice issued by the Department against the petitioner on the grounds that it is hit by limitation and the second review is not permissible under the Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was falsely implicated in criminal cases and faced a departmental enquiry. He was acquitted in all criminal cases and exonerated in the departmental enquiry. He sought promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, which was denied by the Department.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the show cause notice issued by the Department against the petitioner was hit by limitation and the second review was not permissible under the Rules. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion and to promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-I, granting him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

Issues: The issues involved were the validity of the show cause notice issued by the Department and the petitioner's entitlement to promotion after being acquitted in criminal cases and exonerated in the departmental enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the show cause notice was hit by limitation and the second review was not permissible under the Rules. It also emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to promotion after being acquitted in criminal cases and exonerated in the departmental enquiry.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, the impugned show cause notice was quashed, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion and to promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-I, granting him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

JUDGMENT

1. Since the issues involved in both the above writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by way of this common order.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-

2(1) The petitioner is a directly recruited Sub-Inspector of Police. He entered the service through the selection conducted in the year 1984 and he was appointed on 28.09.1987. Subsequently, he was promoted as Inspector of Police in January-1999, by including his name in the panel for the year 1998-99. During the period 2000-2002, he has served as Inspector of Police, NIB, CID at Chennai. The Police use to get information regarding the offences only through the informants. During the relevant period, the petitioner had also a police informant by name Vijayan @ Viji, a Ceylon National, who was helping the Narcotic Wing Department in making seizure of huge quantities of narcotic substances. After serving in NIB, CID, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Inspector of Police, Special Branch CID (Intelligence), wherein he was in-charge of Bulletin. But, all of a sudden, the petitioner was directed to report before the Chief Office vacancy reserve on 28.08.2003 and before he could report, he was arrested in connection with Crime No.947/2003 under Section 41(d) Clause 2 r/w 102 Cr.P.C., of Thiru Vi.Ka.Nagar Police Station and remanded to judicial custody on 29.08.2003. It is learnt that the said police informant Vijayan was arrested, when he was found in possession of a stolen car. The said Vijayan was arrested in connection with Crime No.947/2003 on the file of the Thiru Vi.Ka.Nagar Police Station and on his confession, the petitioner herein was also falsely implicated at the instance of some police personnel, who are inimical to him. The petitioner was served with an order of suspension on 05.09.2003, while he was in judicial custody, suspending him from service with effect from 29.08.2003, the date on which he was arrested, until further orders.

2(2) The case registered in Crime No.947/2003 of Thiru Vi.Ka.Nagar Police Station was dropped against the petitioner and the entire properties were entrusted to some other cases at Pune, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Egmore in his order dated 31.10.2003 ordered the petitioner to be released from the judicial custody. As the criminal case registered in Madras has been dropped, the petitioner was ordered to be released from the judicial custody by the Magistrate. But, the petitioner was falsely implicated in three others cases in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. In C.C.No.305/2003 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Magistrate, Sattanapalli, Andhra Pradesh, after a trial, the petitioner was acquitted on 25.10.2004. Similarly, in the case filed in Satra Police Station, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition No.15/2005 to discharge him from the charges and the petitioner was discharged from the said criminal case by the Court. Further, the criminal case filed against the petitioner before the Additional Sessions-cum-Fast Tract Court, Pune, Maharastra, in connection with Crime No.132/2003 of Band Garden Police Station, the same was taken on file in C.C.No.364/2004, and after a hot trial, the criminal case ended in acquittal on 29.02.2012. After acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner made a representation to revoke the order of suspension and the order of suspension was also revoked on 06.02.2013 and the petitioner has been posted to serve at present station in the in-service training center at Vellore.

2(3) During the pendency of the false criminal case, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the TNPSS (D & A) Rules for the following delinquencies:-

i) Highly reprehensible conduct in having engaged himself as an Agent in illegal trade of Cars and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty which resulted in his arrest in a criminal case on 29.08.2003 at 01.45 am at his quarters, Mand










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top