Madras High Court
B.Saravanan vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 30 April, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No.1208 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.1208 of 2025
and
CMP(MD)No.7505 of 202
B.Saravanan ... Appellant
vs.
The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Region,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, against the order dated 27.11.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.20296 of
2024.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand
For Respondent : Mr.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 27.11.2024
made in W.P(MD)No.20296 of 2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
2. The appellant/writ petitioner is an Inspector of Police. He
was issued with a charge memo dated 23.07.2024 by the respondent
under Rule 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules 1955. Challenging the same, he filed the writ
petition. The charge memo contains three counts of charges. The first
charge relates to the allegation that the appellant had permitted the
accused persons to carry 600 Kilograms of waste wires while taking to
the Court and permitted the accused persons to shift those wires to
another vehicle. The second charge is that the appellant has demanded
a sum of Rs.40,000/- for granting station bail to the the accused persons,
who were implicated in Crime No.363 of 2022. The third charge is that
the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for not implicating the
owner of the Tractor which is alleged to have been involved in sand
theft. The Writ Court finding that the accused have pleaded guilty and
paid fine and waste wires had been taken back by the accused persons
themselves, held that charge No.1 does not stand to legal scrutiny and
accordingly quashed the first charge. As far as charges 2 and 3, the Writ
Court finding that they are factual disputes which can be adjudicated
during enquiry proceedings, held that enquiry shall be proceeded with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
in respect of charges 2 and 3. Ultimately, the writ petition was partly
allowed by the order impugned. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ
petitioner has filed this appeal.
3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the
appellant would state that as regards the second charge relating to
demanding of bribe amount for granting station bail, the accused
persons at no point of time in the court proceedings, had complained
about the alleged demand of bribe by the appellant. That by itself
would prove that the second charge has been framed by the respondent
out of personal vendetta. As regards the third charge relating to
demand of bribe for not making one Jeyasindha, who was the owner of
the Tractor involved in sand theft, as accused in the FIR, learned counsel
would contend that neither in the anticipatory bail petition filed by
Jeyasindha before this Court, nor in the order passed by this Court,
allegation of such demand of bribe by the appellant has been mentioned.
Therefore, framing of third charge is also out of personal vendetta.
Further, the charges were framed after two years from the date of the
alleged incidents. That by itself would prove that due to animosity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
against the appellant, the respondent issued the charge memo. The Writ
Court has failed to consider that charges 2 and 3 were framed by the
respondent due to animosity against the appellant and erroneously
declined to quash charges 2 and 3. Thus, the learned counsel would
pray for quashing charges 2 and 3.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader would state that
charges 2 and 3 which relate to demand of bribe amount, can be decided
only after proper enquiry and the Writ Court has rightly declined to
interfere with the same. Thus, she would pray for dismissal of the
appeal.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Though the appellant contended that the accused did not
make any allegation of bribe against him in the court proceedings /
anticipatory bail petition, that alone cannot be a factor to disprove the
charges of demanding bribe. As rightly held by the Writ Court, the
charges of bribe levelled against a police officer involves the morale of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
the officer concerned and the veracity of the charges can be decided only
during the enquiry proceedings. The appellant cannot take umbrage of
the situation where the accused from whom, the appellant stated to have
received bribe money, did not come forward to give complaint against
the appellant, to disprove the charges of demand of bribe. Therefore, we
do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judge.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]
30.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Region,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
DATED : 30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
