Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Police vs S.Lakshmanan on 27 July, 2021
W.A.No.1695/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1695 of 2021
& C.M.P.Nos.10792 and 10797 of 2021
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Crime and Traffic,
Salem City, Salem. .. Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
S.Lakshmanan .. Respondent/Petitioner
***
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against
the order dated 29.09.2016 in W.P.No.1455 of 2015.
***
For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan
State Government Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Xavier Felix
JUDGEMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The order of the writ Court dated 29.09.2016 allowing W.P.
No.1455 of 2015 is put to challenge by the State.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/7
W.A.No.1695/2021
2. By virtue of the impugned order, the writ Court quashed the
charge memo dated 27.04.2014 and thereby, nipped the impugned
disciplinary proceedings initiated by the first respondent in the bud.
3. According to the writ petitioner, he joined the Police
Department as Sub Inspector of Police on 01.03.1996 and he was
promoted as Inspector of Police on 01.04.2004 ; while he was working
in such capacity in Pallapatti Police Station, Salem City, a complaint was
given by one Arul @ Babu on 11.08.2006 against him for the incident
allegedly happened on 09.07.2006, for which, CSR No.4711771 was
assigned ; it was enquired into by the Assistant Commissioner of Police
(West), (Law and Order), who, in turn, drawn a report stating that the
said complaint was false and mistake of fact, and the same was
forwarded to the Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore (West)
through proper channel and attained finality on 03.09.2006 ; in the
meanwhile, the de-facto complainant filed Crl.O.P.No.20605 of 2006
before this Court seeking a direction to the police authorities to register
the First Information Report (FIR) based on his complaint and the said
petition was disposed of by this Court on 19.08.2006 recording the
submission of the Government and giving liberty to the de-facto
complainant/the petitioner therein to proceed before the appropriate
forum, if he desired so; the de-facto complainant filed petition before
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/7
W.A.No.1695/2021
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, only on 09.08.2011, and it
culminated into the registration of the FIR in Crime No.1046 of 2011
and the arrest of the writ petitioner ; he came out on bail, pursuant to
the order granted by this Court on 06.08.2011 in Crl.O.P.No.20412 of
2011 ; the charge sheet filed against him was taken on file in
P.R.C.No.34 of 2011, questioning which, he filed Crl.O.P.No.22085 of
2014 and this Court vide order dated 17.09.2014 quashed the same ;
the appeal filed against the said order by the State was dismissed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.10345 of 2014 on
08.01.2015 ; in the interregnum, he was issued with a charge memo
dated 02.06.2014 under 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate
Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, on the very same set of
charges, for which, the criminal case was registered ; he successfully
challenged the same in W.P.No.1455 of 2015 and questioning the order
passed on 29.09.2016 therein, the appeal is filed.
4. Learned State Government Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants contended that the scope of the department proceedings
and the criminal proceedings are different and though the criminal
proceedings initiated on the same set of facts is quashed by this Court,
that itself is not a bar to proceed against the delinquent departmentally.
It is also contended that the case in Crime No.1046 of 2011 was
registered against the respondent on 09.08.2011 in terms of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/7
W.A.No.1695/2021
directions of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, and hence,
there is no delay in the issuance of the charge memo on 02.06.2014,
but the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition. The
learned counsel seeks leave of this Court by filing CMP No.10797 of
2021 to file two additional documents in support of the claim of the
Department on the pretext that the personnel of the disciplined force
ought not to have involved in the cases involving SC/ST Act, as the
same would draw disrepute to the force.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ
petitioner submitted that the writ Court taking note of the unexplained
delay of eight years in initiating the department proceedings and the
order of this Court quashing the FIR registered against the respondent
and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject,
quashed the charge memo and the said order requires no interference
at this stage, that too, without any valid ground.
6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the
materials placed before us.
7. It is well-settled that the inordinate delay in initiation of the
disciplinary proceedings, if goes unexplained, is fatal to the department
to proceed with the same. Admittedly, the alleged incident took place
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/7
W.A.No.1695/2021
on 09.07.2006 and the complaint emanated therefrom was closed on
01.09.2006. Though the same was reopened by the de-facto
complainant, that was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.22085 of
2014, and appeal against the order was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.10345 of 2014 on 08.01.2015. But the
said reopening of the case by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Salem, did not give any right to the Department to initiate the
disciplinary proceedings by issuing the charge memo in the year 2014,
that too when the said FIR itself was quashed by this Court. It is not the
case of the appellants that they have come across the incident for the
first time in the year 2011 or in 2014, but they were aware of the same
in the year 2006.
8. In such background, the writ court placing reliance on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Sugar
Corporation Ltd. and Others V. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, (2008) 2
SCC 41 and State of Punjab and Others V. Chaman Lal Goyal,
(1995) 2 SCC 570, rightly quashed the charge memo on the ground of
enormous delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and no
ground is made out by the appellants to interfere with the said order.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the
appeal and it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/7
W.A.No.1695/2021
confirming the order of the writ Court. There shall be no order as to
costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case and that too, the PRC
proceedings in the criminal case itself is quashed by this Court, there is
no ground made out to entertain CMP No.10797 of 2021 and
accordingly, the same is dismissed and CMP No.10792 of 2021 is closed.
(P.S.N., J.) (K.R., J.)
27.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
gg
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Crime and Traffic,
Salem City, Salem.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 6/7
W.A.No.1695/2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.No.1695 of 2021
27.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 7/7
