Madras High Court
N.Shanmugalakshmi vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 29 April, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.6316 of 2021
N.Shanmugalakshmi ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range,
Dindigul.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni.
3.The Additional Superintendent of Police,
Crime against women and children,
Theni District.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Bodi Sub Division,
Theni District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order of the Respondent No.2 in
F1/PR-74/2019 dated 08.04.2021 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 defer all further
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
proceedings in connection with Tha.Pa.No.74/2019 on the file of the
Respondent No.1 dated 02.12.2019 till the conclusion of the criminal
trial in C.C.No.45/2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti in
Crime No.150 of 2019 on the file of the Kadupatty Police Station,
Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan
For Respondents: Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned order of the Respondent No.2 in F1/PR-74/2019, dated
08.04.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
Respondents 1 to 3 defer all further proceedings in connection with
Tha.Pa.No.74/2019, on the file of the Respondent No.1, dated
02.12.2019 till the conclusion of the criminal trial in C.C.No.45/2020, on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti, in Crime No.150 of
2019, on the file of the Kadupatty Police Station, Madurai District.
2.Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu, learned Additional
Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By
consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at
the stage of admission itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
3. According to the petitioner, while she was working as
Inspector of Police in Allinagaram Police Station, First Information
Report was registered against the mother of the petitioner. In the FIR,
the petitioner's name was not mentioned, but she was implicated in the
final report and charge-sheet in C.C.No.45 of 2020 was also filed against
the petitioner, showing her as second accused and the same is pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti. While so, on
02.12.2019 disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D & A)
Rules, 1955 was initiated by the first respondent and chargememo was
issued containing two charges. The first charge is that while working as
a Inspector of Police in Allinagaram Police Station, a case was
registered against her in Cr.No.150 of 2019 for the offences under
Sections 353, 370, 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 14(1) of Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, on the allegation that her
mother Deivarani engaged Child Labour in her mother's house against
Rule 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1964.
The second charge is that the petitioner's mother engaged Child Labour
in her home. Though the petitioner had knowledge about the provisions
of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, she received
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
signature of the relatives of the Child in the unfilled 20 Rupees stamp
paper on 14.09.2018.
4. The third respondent, by order dated 22.01.2021, informed
the petitioner that she should appear before the third respondent on
29.01.2021. The petitioner gave representation on 27.01.2021 to the
respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.1998 of 2021, seeking to defer all the proceedings in
connection with disciplinary proceedings dated 02.12.2019 till the
conclusion of the Criminal Trial in C.C.No.45 of 2020, on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti. This Court by order dated
05.02.2021, directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 27.01.2021, on its own merits and pass orders
within six weeks. The third respondent without complying the order of
this Court, issued summon dated 09.02.2021, directing the petitioner to
appear before him on 15.02.2021, for examining the witnesses in the
domestic enquiry. The second respondent did not pass any orders as
directed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner filed Contempt
Petition(MD)No.575 of 2021. After filing the contempt petition, the
second respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the request of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
the petitioner for deferring the disciplinary proceedings till the
conclusion of the criminal trial in C.C.No.45 of 2020. The said
Contempt Petition was closed on 26.04.2021. Challenging the said
order of rejection, the petitioner has come out with the present writ
petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the witnesses in disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings
are one and the same. If the departmental enquiry is proceeded with,
the petitioner will be forced to disclose her defence and it will prejudice
her defence in the criminal case. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India & Others vs. Neelam
Nag reported in 2016(9) SCC 491. The relevant portions of the said
judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“21. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour
of the respondent of staying the ongoing disciplinary
proceedings until the closure of recording of evidence of
prosecution witnesses cited in the criminal trial, as
directed by the Division Bench of the High Court and do
not consider it fit to vacate that arrangement straightway.
Instead, in our opinion, interests of justice would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
sufficiently served by directing the criminal case pending
against the respondent to be decided expeditiously but not
later than one year from the date of this order. The Trial
Court shall take effective steps to ensure that the
witnesses are served, appear and are examined on day-to-
day basis. In case any adjournment becomes inevitable, it
should not be for more than a fortnight when necessary.
22. We also direct that the respondent shall
extend full cooperation to the Trial Court for an early
disposal fo the trial, which includes cooperation by the
Advocate appointed by her.
23. If the trial is not completed within one year
from the date of this order, despite the steps which the
Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent shall be resumed by
the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to the
respondent of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in
abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiring
of the period of one year from the date of this order.”
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on
the above said judgment contended that the second respondent has not
considered the objection of the petitioner that if she participates in the
disciplinary proceedings and disclose her defence, the same will affect
her defence in the criminal proceedings. The reasons given by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
second respondent in the impugned order are erroneous, invalid and
liable to be set aside and prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.
7. Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that both
criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are entirely
different and distinct and both can be proceeded with simultaneously.
Further, even after acquittal in the criminal case, the respondents can
initiate the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Heard Mr.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the
materials on record.
9. It is an admitted case that the criminal case is pending
against the petitioner in C.C.No.45 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti. The first respondent has issued a
charge memo, dated 02.12.2019. The issue now to be decided in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
writ petition is, whether domestic enquiry to be deferred till the
disposal of the criminal case. A departmental proceeding pending a
criminal proceeding does not warrant an automatic stay. The Court
must consider whether the charges in the criminal case and in the
domestic enquiry are one and same and based on the identical set of
facts. The Court must also taken into account whether the witnesses
cited in the criminal case as well as in the domestic enquiry are
common and whether the proceeding with domestic enquiry before the
trial of the criminal case, will prejudice the petitioner.
10. In the present case, a copy of the charge sheet in the
criminal case and the charge memo issued by the first respondent are
filed in the typed set of papers. A reading of both charges clearly shows
that both the charges are based on same set of facts i.e., based on the
complaint given by one Balasubramanian. The first charge is that the
petitioner while working as a Inspector of Police in Allinagaram Police
Station, a case was registered against her in Cr.No.150 of 2019 for the
offences under Sections 353, 370, 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 14(1)
of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 on the allegation
that her mother Deivarani engaged Child Labour in her mother's house
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
against the Rule 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service
Rules, 1964. The second charge is that the petitioner's mother engaged
Child Labour in her home. Though the petitioner had knowledge about
the provisions of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act
1986, she received signature of the relatives of the Child in the unfilled
20 Rupees stamp paper on 14.09.2018.
11. According to the petitioner, criminal case is ripe for trial
and the same is posted for examination of witnesses. If before
recording the evidence in the criminal case, the domestic enquiry is
proceeded with, the same witnesses are examined in the domestic
enquiry, the petitioner will be forced to disclose her defence and it will
prejudice her defence in the criminal case. The witnesses subsequently
examined in the criminal case will be well prepared to meet out the
defence taken by the petitioner. The criminal trial may take a long time
to conclude. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in State Bank of India & Others vs. Neelam Nag reported
in 2016(9) SCC 491 the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the trial
Court to conclude the criminal trial as expeditiously as possible and in
any event, not later than one year from the date of order of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if criminal case is not
completed within one year, it is open to the respondent to proceed with
the domestic enquiry.
12. In view of the above facts and judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in State Bank of India & Others vs. Neelam Nag
reported in 2016(9) SCC 491 the respondents are directed to defer
the domestic enquiry for one year from today. The learned Judicial
Magistrate, Vadipatti is directed to conduct the trial in C.C.No.45 of
2020 as expeditiously as possible on day-to-day basis, in any event,
within one year from today. The first respondent is directed to take
effective steps for conclusion of trial as expeditiously as possible. The
petitioner is also directed to co-operate for conducting criminal case
trial and should not drag on the proceedings, by seeking unnecessary
adjournments.
13. With the above observations and directions, the writ
petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No 29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
am
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range,
Dindigul.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District,
Theni.
3.The Additional Superintendent of Police,
Crime against women and children,
Theni District.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Bodi Sub Division,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) No.8340 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
am / smn2
W.P.(MD)No.8340 of 2021
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
