Adherence to established departmental practices prior to new directives is crucial when determining disciplinary action against public servants in the context of procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge directing the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu to place Mr.Sunil, DSP, under suspension and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against him, and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law and also to file an Action Taken Report along with a compliance affidavit before this Court on or before 05.08.2025 vide order dated 14.07.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.18585 of 2025.

2. LPA.No.41 of 2025 has been filed by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police and LPA.No.42 of 2025 has been filed by the police. The respondent in LPA.No.42 of 2025/defacto complainant is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18585 of 2025.

3. A brief prelude of the factual position would be necessary on which the impugned order came to be passed is as follows:-

3.a. The respondent in LPA.No.42 of 2025 has filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.18585 of 2025 under 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for a direction to file final report in respect of the FIR registered in Cr.No.91 of 2024 registered on 24.01.2024 for the offences under Section 147, 447, 294(b), 323, 324, 354-B, 384, 427 and 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The grievance of the respondent in LPA.No.42 of 2025 before the learned Single Judge is that despite complaint was given as early as 2024, no action has been taken. Hence, the petition was filed seeking for a direction to file a final report. At that stage, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the complaint was closed after conducting an enquiry and forwarded to the District Collector. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the procedure followed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police is not in tune with the CrPC. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that the report of the police officer after investigation shall be filed only under Section 173 of CrPC before the Court not before the District Collector. Further, the referred charge sheet is also not served on the defacto complainant, therefore, finding that there was a gross violation of statutory mandate committed by the DSP, the learned Single Judge directed the the Director General of Police to suspend the petitioner and for initiation of appropriate disciplinary proceedings and also and also to file an Action Taken Report along with a compliance affidavit before this Court on or before 05.08.2025. Challenging the said directions, the present LPAs have been filed by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police and the police.

4.Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prior to the issuance of circular dated 06.02.2025 in Rc.No.B1/2783/SJ&HR/2024 of the Office of the DGP, Tamil Nadu, it was the general practice of the investigation officer that if it was found that no caste-based offence was committed against the complainant and that the complaint was false, final report in the form of closure report will be placed before the District Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee constituted under Rule 17 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter 'committee') and the appellant has promptly and conscientiously discharged his duties and responsibilities by placing the closure report dated 11.04.2024 on 02.08.2024 before the Committee. The appellant being an young officer who conducted the investigation was of the view that since the case is not made whatsoever and the complaint was false stemming from a pre-exist