BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.10.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.13931 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.11758 and 22630 of 2023 Soundarapandian ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil Sub Division, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned show cause notice issued by the third respondent in P.R.No. 17 of 2023, dated 20.04.2023 under Rule 3 (a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The instant Writ Petition has been filed by an Inspector of Police, challenging the show cause notice issued to him on 20.04.2023 under Rule 3 (a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the impugned show cause notice has been issued for the alleged misconduct that is said to have taken place on 27.08.2008 and on 30.08.2008. The instant charge memo has been issued after 15 years is liable to be quashed on the ground that the charge memo has been belatedly issued.

3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents herein, especially, relying upon the counter contended that since the criminal proceedings were pending as against the writ petitioner in Special S.C.No.5 of 2009 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, a request was made by the DVAC Department to postpone the departmental proceedings till the completion of the criminal case. However, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.(Ms) No.66, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 06.07.2022 permitting simultaneously departmental proceedings for the same set of charges as in the criminal case. Therefore, relying upon the said Government Order, the charge memo came to be issued on 20.04.2023. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the Department for issuing charge memo.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. On a perusal of the show cause notice, it clearly indicates that it relates to the alleged misconduct on 27.08.2008 and on 30.08.2008. The primary ground on which, the show cause notice is challenged, is that belatedly show cause notice has been issued invoking Rule 3 (a) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. There is no explanation on the part of the Department in their counter affidavit for the belatedly issuing a charge memo. However, he further contended on the side of the respondents that the petitioner was involved in a trap case and he was facing criminal charges in Special SC No.05 of 2009, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. At the relevant point of time, they received a letter from the Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, to issue show cause notice to the writ petitioner, but not to proceed with the enquiry. Hence, they have not issued show cause notice. However, in view of G.O.(Ms) No.66, Human Resources Management (N) Department, dated 06.07.2022, they have issued the present show cause notice, and this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention.

6. In view of the fact that the letter of the Director General of Police, dated 16.12.2009 relates only to DVAC proceedings and it does not relate to the misconduct alleged in the impugned show cause notice, dated 20.04.2023, there is no legal impediment for the Department to issue the impugned show cause notice even in the year 2008