ORDER

This petition has been filed to set aside/expunge the remarks made by the IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C.No.319 of 2017, dated 24.04.2018 whereby the trial Judge has directed disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the petitioners and to recover the compensation amount payable by the State from the salary of the first and third petitioners and from the pension amount of the second petitioner.

2. The petitioners are Investigation Officers, who were involved in the Investigation in Crime No.695 of 2009, which ultimately resulted in a final report taken on file and ended in acquittal of the accused person from all charges in S.C.No.319 of 2017 through judgment and order, dated 24.04.2018. The grievance of the petitioners is that they had conducted the investigation in a proper manner and discharged their official duty and after the final report was approved by the District Public Prosecutor, it was laid before the trial Court. The case was based on circumstantial evidence and unfortunately, four of the witnesses turned hostile and the trial Court acquitted the accused person from all charges giving the benefit of doubt. While doing so, the trial Court without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, made adverse remarks against them and directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings and recovery of the compensation amount from their salary/pension.

Aggrieved by the same, this petition has been filed before this Court.

3. Heard Mr.K.Samidurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent/State.

4. Inorder to appreciate the reason as to why the trial Court directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and recovery of compensation from their salary/pension, the relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder:

“35. To sum up, the prosecution had refused to trace out the informant to VAO. The prosecution has not proved that the dead body belongs to Santhanakrishnan or not. Though it is stated that the family members have identified through photograph, that photograph has not been produced before this court. The head and femur bone were not sent for superimposition. The photograph of Santhanakrishnan was not obtained from the family members by the police. The police have abstained from examining the management of the Velsell company regarding the bonus issue. The trip sheet of the lorry in which the deceased and accused were working was not obtained by the police to show that when the deceased finally attended the job. Arrest and recovery of Mo1 to Mo3 have not been proved by the prosecution. Weapon does not match with injuries found. The confession does not support the case of the prosecution due to mismatch of the injuries and the weapon seized. The confession itself is proved to be fabricated. The stage of the decomposition and the time of the alleged occurrence, is not within acceptable period. Scientific Assistant Ms.Stella was omitted to be examined. Non- availability of blood in the place of occurrence, lorry and the place where the body was found leads to serious doubt. All three IOs abstained from finding out the informant to VAO adds to the doubt regarding the place and the time of the crime mentioned by the prosecution. All these discrepancies and lacuna on the part of the procution leads to a strong inference that the persons who had really committed the crime have been let free and this accused has been falsely implicated in this case and therefore he in entitled for acquittal.

36. Moreover, specific allegation was made by the accused that he was beaten by the police men in the Thideer nagar police station, by shoes and lathis. The accused himself has deposed as DW1 and he has stated that on 21.10.2009 after finishing his job he went to his home at 05:30 pm, and that at 06:00 p.m., three persons came in civil dress introducing themselves as