Madras High Court
S.Ravichandran vs The Commissioner Of Police on 18 November, 2022
W.P(MD)No.26136 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)Nos.26136 to 26138 of 2022
S.Ravichandran ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26136 of 2022
C.Sathis Kumar ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26137 of 2022
R.Ravichandran ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26138 of 2022
Vs.
The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai. ... Respondent in all W.Ps.
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.26136 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to
direct the Respondent to defer the departmental proceedings in
Tha.Pa.No.D1(1) /Tha.Pa.No.40/22 dated 05.05.22 on the file of the
Respondent till the disposal of the criminal case in S.C.No. 289/21 on the file
of the V Additional Sessions Court, Madurai.
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.26137 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to
direct the Respondent to defer the departmental proceedings in
Tha.Pa.No.D1(1) /Tha.Pa.No.41/22 on the file of the Respondent till the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD)No.26136 of 2022
disposal of the criminal case in S.C.No.289/21 on the file of the V Additional
Sessions Court, Madurai.
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.26138 of 2022 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to
direct the Respondent to defer the departmental proceedings in
Tha.Pa.No.D1(1) /Tha.Pa.No.39/22, on the file of the Respondent till the
disposal of the criminal case in S.C.No. 289/21 on the file of the V Additional
Sessions Court, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The petitioners are employed as Police Personnel. They are facing
prosecution in S.C.No.289 of 2021 on the file of the 5th Additional Sessions
Court, Madurai. It is a case of custodial death. The case is presently pending at
the stage of framing of charge. Final report was filed primarily for the offence
under Section 304(ii) of IPC. Now the petitioners have been visited with the
impugned charge memo. Final report laid against the petitioners alleges that
the petitioners herein along with A1 had beaten the deceased Muthu Karthick
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
W.P(MD)No.26136 of 2022
by using hands and legs and that he died as a consequence. The petitioners are
figuring as A2 to A4 in the criminal case.
3. I went through the contents of the final report. I also went through the
contents of the articles of charge. It cannot be in dispute that the criminal case
as well as the departmental enquiry are predicated on the same set of facts.
Now the question that arises for consideration is whether disciplinary action
initiated against the petitioners can be parallely continued during the pendency
of the criminal prosecution.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits that this issue had been settled in the decision reported in
(2016) 9 SCC 491 (SBI Vs. Neelam Nag). He reminded this Court that there
has been a paradigm shift in judicial approach and the writ courts no longer
stay the departmental proceedings, even if the criminal prosecution is parallely
going on. The contention advanced by the learned Additional Government
Pleader is well founded. However, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the aforesaid decision followed the earlier decision reported in (2014)
3 SCC 636 (Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V.).
Paragraph No.13 of the said Judgment reads that while there is no legal bar to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/6
W.P(MD)No.26136 of 2022
the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial
simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in
cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance
of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the
criminal court. Of-course, the said decision further adds that gravity of the
charge is however not by itself enough to determine the question unless the
charge involves complicated question of law and fact. It cannot be in dispute
that custodial death is a grave charge.
5. In the very nature of things, a case of this nature would involve
complicated question of law and fact. I am therefore satisfied that case for stay
has been made out. However, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not
in the interest of the employer to continue to keep the disciplinary action
pending for an indefinitely long time. This is because, criminal cases do not get
over early. In the case on hand, the petitioners are not under suspension. In
these circumstances, I am inclined to adopt the approach set out in Stanzen
case.
6. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) Before me, A2 to A4 alone are the petitioners. The first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/6
W.P(MD)No.26136 of 2022
accused is not before me. The charges have not been framed. It may
not therefore be advisable for this Court to issue any time bound
direction to the trial Judge.
(II) If the trial is not completed within one year, the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners will be taken
up. In other words, the impugned action initiated against the
petitioners is put on hold for a period of one year.
No costs.
18.11.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/6
W.P(MD)No.26136 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
W.P(MD)Nos.26136 to 26138 of 2022
18.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
