Madras High Court
E.Panneerselvam vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 8 March, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD)No.4753 of 2017
E.Panneerselvam ... Petitioner
vs
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home(PO1-IV A) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-600 004.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Trichy City,
Trichy. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
charge memo issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings H1/Tha.Pa.No.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
24/2014 Rule 3 (b) dated 25.07.2014 and the consequential impugned order
passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Letter
No.59415/POL.IVA/2016-2, dated, 08.10.2016 and the consequential impugned
memorandum passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.
119717/Con.3(2)/2014 dated 14.11.2016 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate(Civil side)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned Charge Memo, dated
24.07.2014 and the consequential proceedings of the first respondent dated
08.10.2016 and the proceedings of the second respondent dated 14.11.2016.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed Grade II
Police Constable in the year 1975, then promoted as Sub-Inspector in the year
2006. A Criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.32 of 2008
on the file of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Trichy. The allegation against the
petitioner is that he demanded illegal gratification to allow the settlement between
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
the de-facto complainant and the accused. Subsequently, the was transferred to
Nagercoil. The third respondent has issued a Charge Memo dated 28.12.201
under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Sub-Ordinate Service (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1955 on the alleged dereliction of duty by referring a case in
Cr.No.1451 of 2007 on the file of Cantonment Police Station for the alleged
offences under Section 420 & 447 of IPC based on the complaint dated
23.12.2007 and Subsequently the same was appealed against by the complainant.
The said case was directed to be registered on the file of Trichy City Crime,
Branch in Cr.No.21 of 2011. The impugned Charge Memo was issued for illegal
gratification of Rs.5000/- allowing the settlement between the de-facto
complainant and the accused. After the full-fledged trial, the petitioner was
acquitted on 21.05.2014. On 30.07.2014, the petitioner was retained in service
beyond the date of superannuation i.e., on 31.07.2014 on the ground that grave
charges are pending against the petitioner in Trichirappalli City Punishment Roll
Nos.66 of 2013 and 24 of 2014 and an enquiry was conducted on the Charge
Memo, dated 28.12.2013 and an order of compulsory retirement from service was
passed on the date of superannuation i.e., 31.07.2014 in the proceedings, dated
01.06.2015. Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
petitioner is receiving provisional pension till now, since there was no further
action to the impugned Charge Memo, dated 25.07.2014. The petitioner was
under bonafide impression that the said Charge Memo was not acted upon.
3. In the meanwhile, the first respondent has passed the impugned
proceedings dated 08.10.2016, wherein, it was directed to continue the Charge
Memo against the petitioner in PR.No.24 of 2013. The respondents have issued
the impugned communication dated 14.11.2016 has directed the Assistant
Commissioner of Police to complete the enquiry and inform the same to the
respondent. Aggrieved over the said communication, the present writ petition is
filed.
4. The respondents have filed a counter stating that the present charge
memo was issued in the year 2014 itself, on the allegation for getting illegal
gratification from the de-facto complainant in order to settle the matter between
the de-facto complainant and the accused. As per GO.Ms.No.251 Personnel and
Administrative Reforms(Per-N) Department, dated 21.04.1988 under para 125 of
Vigilance Manual, it is stated that in the case of any acquittal by the Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
whether on merits or on technical grounds or otherwise disciplinary action may
be proceeded against the acquitted official, with the same facts constituting the
charge. Based on this, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated after the
disposal of the criminal case. The respondents relied on two judgments rendered
by the Supreme Court and prayed to dismiss the writ petition and prayed time
framed may be fixed for completion of the enquiry.
5. Heard Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that there are two charge memos
issued against the petitioner. The first Charge was issued on 28.12.2013 and the
full-fledged enquiry was conducted. The allegation of the first charge memo was
that the petitioner did not register the complaint of one Mr.Kathirvel, thereafter,
the said Kathirvel was forced to file a petition before the Magistrate Court in
order to register the complaint. After the order of the Magistrate Court, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
complaint was registered. Hence there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the
petitioner. The respondents have come to the conclusion that there is a
dereliction of duty after the enquiry, imposed a punishment of compulsory
retirement from service on the date of superannuation i.e., 31.07.2014, vide order,
dated 01.06.2015. The petitioner is not aggrieved over this orde.
7. The second charge memo was issued on 25.07.2014 for the alleged
delinquency that happened on 02.12.2008. The allegation against the petitioner is
that he had received illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
only) from the de-facto complainant, in order to compromise between the de-facto
complainant and the accused. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner
and after full-fledged trial by the Magistrate Court, the petitioner was acquitted
and the Magistrate Court has held in paragraph 28 of the judgment that the
prosecution has not proved. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that
since the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal proceedings, the case of the
petitioner ought to be considered because of the subsequent facts and
circumstances of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
8. Admittedly, the respondents have every power to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings and the criminal proceedings. In several cases, this Court has held
that criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings shall go on
simultaneously. In the present case, the alleged delinquency has happened in the
year 2008 and the impugned Charge Memo was issued in the year 2014 i.e., after
the lapse of eight years. It is admittedly a belated Charge Memo. The petitioner
has already suffered punishment of compulsory retirement in the earlier Charge
Memo. According to the petitioner, in C.Mathesu's case, if the Government
Servant is allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation or where the
Departmental proceedings are to be initiated after the retirement, there is no
question of passing the order of dismissal or removal from service and only the
pension can be withheld, withdrawn or reduced”. In the present case, the
impugned Charge Memo was issued just one week prior to the date of
superannuation for the alleged delinquency happened in the year 2008. This
Court has already held that the Charge Memo is a belated one as stated supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the second Charge
Memo will not have any effect and this Court is inclined to quash the Charge
Memo. The impugned Charge Memo and subsequent proceedings are quashed
10. The petitioner submitted that the he was not granted any terminal
benefits. The respondents are directed to grant all terminal benefits as applicable
to the petitioner based on the punishment of compulsory retirement on the date of
superannuation for the earlier Charge Memo.
11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
jbr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
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 Principal Secretary to Government,
Home(Pol-IV A) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-600 004.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Trichy City,
Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
S.SRIMATHY, J
jbr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.6027 of 2017
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
