A third party can compel disciplinary action against police officials based on false charges leading to acquittal.

ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 06.09.2024.

2.It is the submission of the petitioner that the respondents 4 and 5 have foisted false case against the petitioner in CC No.80 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court under NDPS Act, Coimbatore, wherein the Trial Court by order dated 13.06.2024 held that the offence is not made out against the petitioner and acquitted the petitioner. It is the further submission of the petitioner's counsel that while disposing of the CC No.80 of

2021, the Trial Court found that a false case foisted against the both accused 1 and 2 therein. In this connection, the Trial Court has recommended the departmental action against both PW1 and PW3 who are the respondents 4 and 5 herein respecitvely. Hence, in respect of such recommentation, the petitioner has sent representation dated 06.09.2024 to the respondents 1 to 3 and in spite of the said representation, the respodents 1 to 3 have not considered the same and they have not initiated any action against the respondents 4 and 5. Hence, prayes this Court to interfere with the same by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate the criminal proceedings against the respondents 4 and 5.

3.At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that they will consider the petitioner's representation dated

06.09.2024 according to its own meirts and pass orders in accordance with law.

4. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 would submit that rd the petitioner being the 3 party, in service jurisdiction, she has no locus standi to send the representation to the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate the criminal proceedings against the respondents 4 and 5. Apart from that, the representation of the petitioner also claims Rs.50 lakhs as compensation, for which this Court is not proper forum and appropriate forum is to approach the Human Rights Commission. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in WP (MD) No.8871 of 2018 dated 26.04.2018, (Sudalikannu .Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government & Others), wherein the learned counsel has invited to the attention of this Court the Para Nos.12 to 14 for ready reference. The same is extracted hereunder:

"12. By relying upon the decisions, the learned senior counsel has submitted that, the petitioner certainly does not have any locus to maintain this Writ petition as service dispute and therefore, he cannot set the law in motion by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India , on the service side and therefore, this writ petition can be rejected.

13. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel as well as the submissions made by the learned senior counsel who has been requested to assist this Court as Amicus and also persued the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel.

14. As it is rightly pointed out by the learned Amicus, the Law in this regard is well settled, as a third party, not connected with any service dispute cannot maintain the Writ petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India , on the service side seeking a Writ of Mandamus to take action against any employee or officials."

5. In addition to, he relied upon the judgment dated 11.01.2000 of the Supreme Court in the Case " Rajnit Prasad Vs. Union of India , reported in (2000)9 Supreme Court Cases 313, wherein he also invited to the attention of this Court by referring to the paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 which is extracted hereunder for ready reference.

"8. It is, no doubt, true that the scope of Locus Standi has been widened by this Court through its various decisions and, that too, in the fiel