Madras High Court
M.Gunasekaran vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 5 July, 2021
W.P(MD)No.10435 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.10435 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.8109, 8110 & 8111 of 2021
M.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Superintendent of Police,
Offences against Women and Children,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the
file of the first respondent pertaining to its order bearing
Na.Ka.No.B1/3864/2018, dated 15.10.2020 and to quash the same and
consequently directing the first respondent to transfer the enquiry
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10435 of 2021
proceeding in P.R.No.90 of 2019 on the file of the third respondent to any
other officer by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated
01.10.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, to quash the order of
the first respondent, dated 15.10.2020 and direct the first respondent to
transfer the enquiry proceeding in P.R.No.90 of 2019, on the file of the third
respondent to any other officer, by considering his representation, dated
01.10.2020.
2.According to the petitioner, while he was working as a Circle
Inspector at Temple Circle Police Station, Rameswaram, due to his illness,
he was on medical leave and went to his native place in Dindigul. At that
time, a false case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.316 of
2018 on the file of Dindigul Taluk Police Station and the same was taken on
file in C.C.No.214 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Dindigul. While the said criminal case was pending, the second respondent
initiated disciplinary proceedings in P.R.No.90 of 2019, dated 04.12.2019,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10435 of 2021
for the very same charges. After full-fledged trial in the criminal case in
C.C.No.214 of 2018, the petitioner was acquitted by Judgment, dated
12.08.2020, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.
3.In the disciplinary proceedings, the third respondent was appointed
as an enquiry officer and he commenced enquiry on 07.03.2020. From the
day one of the enquiry, the third respondent is conducting the enquiry in a
biased manner. The third respondent is not giving any opportunity to the
petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The third respondent on his own
recorded the evidence. The complainant was examined as P.W.6 on
30.09.2020 and the third respondent forced the petitioner to cross-examine
the complainant-P.W.6 on the same day. The Investigating Officer was
examined as P.W.7 on 03.10.2020, in the absence of the petitioner. When
the petitioner requested time for cross-examination, the third respondent
refused to give opportunity and marked the petitioner as absent. Hence, the
petitioner gave representation on 09.06.2021 to the third respondent to
re-call P.W.6 and P.W.7 and to permit him to cross-examine P.W.6 and P.W.7
once again. In the meantime, the first respondent passed the impugned
order, dated 15.10.2020, permitting the third respondent to continue the
domestic enquiry and directed the petitioner to co-operate with the enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10435 of 2021
The third respondent, without considering the petitioner's acquittal in the
criminal case, is conducting enquiry and prayed to quash the order passed
by the first respondent, dated 15.10.2020 and to direct the first respondent
to transfer the enquiry proceeding in P.R.No.90 of 2019 on the file of the
third respondent to any other officer.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused
the materials available on record.
5.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was commenced on
07.03.2020. The third respondent is the enquiry officer. According to the
petitioner, from the beginning itself, the third respondent conducted enquiry
in a biased manner. The third respondent has not recorded the evidence and
witnesses as deposed by them and he recorded the same on his own
volition. According to the petitioner, the third respondent forced the
petitioner to cross-examine the complainant-P.W.6 without furnishing the
deposition of P.W.6 in chief on 30.09.2020 itself. Similarly, P.W.7, the
Investigating Officer was examined on 03.10.2020 in the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10435 of 2021
absence and when he requested time for cross-examination, the third
respondent marked the petitioner as absent.
6.Further, from the above materials available on record, it is seen that
P.W.6 was examined on 30.09.2020 and P.W.7 was examined on
03.10.2020. The petitioner has requested the third respondent re-calling
P.W.6 and P.W.7 only in his representation, dated 09.06.2021. Though the
petitioner has stated that immediately after examination of P.W.6 and P.W.7,
the petitioner requested the third respondent to re-call P.W.6 and P.W.7, the
petitioner has not produced any representation to that effect. Further, the
first respondent considered the representation of the petitioner, dated
01.10.2020 and passed the impugned order, dated 15.10.2020, permitting
the third respondent to continue the domestic enquiry and directed the
petitioner to co-operate for early conclusion. If really, the third respondent
was conducting domestic enquiry in a biased manner and is not giving
proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, the petitioner ought to
have taken appropriate proceedings including approaching this Court in this
regard at the earliest. Even though the petitioner alleging that the third
respondent is conducting enquiry in a biased manner from the beginning ie.,
on 07.03.2020, the petitioner gave representation to the third respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10435 of 2021
only on 09.06.2021 to re-call P.W.6 and P.W.7 and filed the present Writ
Petition in June, 2021. Similarly, the first respondent by the impugned order
permitted the third respondent to continue the domestic enquiry. The
petitioner has not challenged the said order immediately, but participated in
the domestic enquiry for more than 8 months. After 8 months, the
petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.
7.Considering the materials referred to above, the petitioner is not
entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
05.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10435 of 2021
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Superintendent of Police,
Offences against Women and Children,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.10435 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.10435 of 2021
05.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
