Issuing a second charge memo while a criminal case is pending violates principles of natural justice and is impermissible.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo issued by him in P.R. No. 128/2015 under rule 3(b) dated 18.12.2015 and quash the same.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned charge memo, dated 18.12.2015, issued by the first respondent.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned charge memo, on the ground that a second charge memo has been issued to him on the same set of charges, even though the earlier charge memo issued to him for the same set of charges was kept in abeyance due to the pendency of a criminal case against him.

3. The petitioner was an accused in a criminal case and based on the same, the earlier charge memo was issued to him. Subsequently, the petitioner turned as an approver and he was dropped from the array of accused in the criminal case. Based on his statement as an approver, the impugned second charge memo dated 18.12.2015 was issued by the first respondent, which is challenged in this writ petition.

4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned charge memo, on the following grounds:

(a) The impugned charge memo is contrary to the rules and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(b) The third respondent has failed to consider that the impugned charge memo issued to the petitioner is in violation of various decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, which clearly shows that on the same set of allegations, if any criminal case is pending, it will be advisable that the departmental disciplinary proceedings shall be stayed pending disposal of the criminal case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the earlier proceedings of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, dated 22.01.2014, by which, the earlier charge memo issued to the petitioner for the same set of charges was kept in abeyance till the disposal of the pending criminal case. He also drew the attention of this Court to the impugned charge memo dated 18.12.2015, which is the second charge memo issued in respect of the same set of allegations levelled against the petitioner and would submit that when the criminal case is still pending, even though the petitioner has turned as an approver, using the statement made by the petitioner as an approver issuing the impugned second charge memo, is impermissible in law.

6. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would reiterate the contents of the impugned charge memo and he would submit that the very same grounds that are raised by the petitioner in this writ petition can very well be raised by him while giving his explanation to the respondents with regard to the impugned charge memo and only due to the pendency of this writ petition, further proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge memo is stalled. He would also submit that the earlier charge memo, which was kept in abeyance pursuant to the proceedings of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, dated 22.01.2024, was issued to the petitioner when he was an accused in the criminal case, but, whereas the impugned charge memo, dated 18.12.2015, was issued to the petitioner only after he turned as an approver.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is willing to give an undertaking that depending upon the outcome of the pending criminal case, where he stands as an approver if any adverse inference is drawn or adverse order is passed against him in the said criminal case, he is ready and willing to participate in the departmental disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge memo issued to him. It is also informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that the criminal case, in which the petitioner is an approver, is still pen