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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P. SAHI, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
S. Kamalraj – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.A. No. 966 of 2020 & C.M.P. Nos. 11727 & 11729 of 2020
Decided on : 02-11-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Prakash Goklaney, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Elumalai, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

The foundation of the suspension order was based on a preliminary enquiry, and the material collected would be subject to a full-scale enquiry by the respondents. The court found no error in the impugned judgment and dismissed the Writ Appeal.

Headnote:

Bias - Disciplinary Proceedings - Major Penalty Charge - [IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - MAJOR PENALTY CHARGE] - [Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955, Rule 1.10(4)] - The court discussed the allegations of bias reflected throughout the officials of the police department, the charge memo being anti-dated, and the absence of illegal gratification in the nature of the transaction. The court highlighted the relevant provisions in the Handbook of Disciplinary Proceedings and concluded that the foundation of the suspension order was based on a preliminary enquiry, and the material collected would be subject to a full-scale enquiry by the respondents. The court found no error in the impugned judgment and dismissed the Writ Appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought to quash the charge memo and all consequential proceedings and to reinstate as Head Constable after being suspended due to complaints related to dubious land transactions. The appellant alleged inherent bias, non-compliance with prescribed procedure, and violation of fair play and natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suspension order was based on a preliminary enquiry and did not attach finality to the proceedings. It observed that the charge would be subject to a full-scale enquiry and that the material of immovable property being transacted did not amount to insufficiency of material. The court dismissed the Writ Appeal.

Issues: Inherent bias, non-compliance with prescribed procedure, violation of fair play and natural justice, absence of illegal gratification in the nature of the transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: The foundation of the suspension order was based on a preliminary enquiry, and the material collected would be subject to a full-scale enquiry by the respondents. The court found no error in the impugned judgment and dismissed the Writ Appeal.

Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed with the aforesaid observations. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.11727 and 11729 of 2020 are closed.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 08.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.12315 of 2020 on the file of this Court.)

1. We have heard Mr.Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The appeal arises out of a writ petition where the relief prayed was for a certiorarified mandamus to quash the charge memo dated 10.06.2020 served on 27.07.2020 and all consequential proceedings relating thereto, with a further request to reinstate the appellant as Head Constable, who has been suspended by the order dated 20.04.2020.

3. The background in which the proceedings have been initiated has been narrated in the pleadings and we find that two complaints were laid, one by Gayathri and the other by one Balaji in May, 2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, urging that the appellant by adopting dubious methods had induced the complainants to enter into land transactions. In fact, he did not have any title over the land and he, accordingly, appropriated to himself a certain amount of money as disclosed in the complaints as a consequence of the said transactions. The complaint was laid on the basis of a statement made by the said Gayathri, wherein the following has been alleged:-

“Statement of Tmt.Gayathri, F/A 39, W/o.Balamurugan, B 9/3 Police Quarters, North Raja Street, Alandur, Chennai-16.

I am residing at the above said police quarters, along with my family members. My husband joined Police Department in the year 2003, and at present he is working on deputation in Chennai Airport. A known person to me Kamalraj, is working as the constable in Intelligence wing. He represented to my husband that the vacant land which is ancestral property in the name of his mother Usharani, near Periyar Samathuvapuram, Perungalathur, are being laid out as house sites and are being sold and that if he desires, he is selling for a reduced rate and that further, he said that he will take the responsibility of obtained patta and adangal in respect of the above said plot. We believed his words and agreed to purchase the vacant land. Thereafter my husband went and observed the above said land. As we liked the land, the sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- was fixed for the purchase of Plot No.3, in survey No.441, measuring 925 sq.ft. Thereafter on 26.06.2015, the advance amount of Rs.50 lakhs was given at my house in cash to Kamalraj. By that time, my father in law Ponraj and mother in law Janaki were wi 4.The appellant, onth me. Kamalraj received the above said amount and signed on a Rs.20 stamp paper, that he received the sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance. Thereafter on 08.07.2015, I, my husband and father in law went to the house of Kamalraj at No.59/22, Bajanai Koil Street, West Tambaram, Chennai-45. There Kamalraj wife Usha and mother Usharani were available. Usharani typed on Rs.100 unregistered stamp paper, conveying the above said land in my name. Usharani signed in that. Usha and my father in law signed as witnesses. Thereafter from my SBI Bank, Alandur Branch Account No.10482108535, I transferred Rs.3 lakhs on 10.07.2015 to the account of Usharani in SBI Bank account bearing No.10565418102. Kamalraj who received the said amount from bank came to us and that he will register the land in my name within a period of three months. We also believed that. Thereafter he did not take any effort in respect of the property. Along with me, my husband contacted Kamalraj and his mother Usharani on several occasions over phone and in person. They were giving lame excuses. Then after a period of six month, Kamalraj had given the receipt and patta stating that they were issued for the payment of tax for the above said land. When we enquired in the concerned office about the same, they informed us that the above said land is government grazing poramboke land and that the patta, adangal could not be obtained in respect of the said land and t

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