Advocates:
['M/S THALAIMUTHARASU G', '', 'MOHANASUNDARAM M', '', 'SPL GOVT PLEADER MEMO FILED']

W.P.(MD) No.18825 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 08.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.(MD) No.18825 of 2021

W.M.P(MD).Nos.15643 & 18769 of 2021

K.S.Harikrishnan ... Petitioner

Vs.

1 The Deputy Inspector General of Police,

Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.

2 The Additional Superintendent of Police,

Head Quarters,

Thoothukudi District,

Thoothukudi.

3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Crime Branch Crime Investigation Department (CBCID),

Tirunelveli Range,

Tirunelveli.

... Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records

on the file of the 1^st Respondent in connection with the impugned

Charge Memo issued by him in P.R.No.129/2021 dated 06.07.2021 and

the impugned notice for enquiry issued by the 2nd respondent vide

his proceedings in Na.ka.No.2/2021 dated 20.09.2021 and quash the

both as illegal and arbitrary in the light of the Deletion Report

filed by the 3rd respondent along with the Final Report before the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.I Kovilpatti in No.FR-2/2021 dated

15.03.2021 for the facts and circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu

For Respondents

:

Mr.A.K.Manikkam

Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The charge memo dated 06.07.2021 issued under Rule 3(B) of the

Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules

and subsequent notice issued by the Enquiry Officer to conduct an

enquiry are under challenge in the present writ petition.

_________

Page 1 of 5

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD) No.18825 of 2021

2. The petitioner is working as Inspector of Police. With

reference to certain allegations, the impugned charge memo has been

issued.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly

attacked the charges on two grounds.

4. Firstly, the charge No.1 states that one Selvan, who is the

son of Thanislas, had given a complaint on 31.07.2019. However, the

petitioner has not initiated any action on the complaint and the

said conduct of the petitioner as Inspector of Police is a

misconduct under the Conduct Rules. In this regard, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner

joined as the Inspector of Police in the said Police Station on

05.08.2009, after the date of the complaint and therefore, there is

no application of mind on the part of the Authorities.

5. The ground of attack with reference to the second charge is

that the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No.279 of

2020 under Sections 364, 302 IPC. However, the Crime Branch-Criminal

Investigation Department conducted elaborate investigation and at

the time of filing the final report, the name of the petitioner was

deleted. Thus, the charge itself is untenable.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader objected the said

contention by stating that the final report cannot be a ground to

quash the charge memo as the charge memo was issued under the

Discipline and Appeals Rules and the misconducts as alleged in the

charge memorandum are to be enquired into by the Competent

Authorities.

7. Considering the arguments, it is relevant to look into the

nature of the allegations in the charge memorandum. Though the

petitioner referred the complaint dated 31.07.2019 given by one

Selvan, the said charge memo further proceeds by stating that the

father of the said Selvan has given a complaint on 03.09.2019 and

the said complaint has not been enquired into by the writ

petitioner. Therefore, the father of the original complainant namely

Thanislas, has also given a complaint reiterating the said

allegations on 03.09.2019. The said complaint was not enquired into

by the petitioner in his capacity as Inspector of Police. Therefore,