Madras High Court
G.Thiruvanantham vs The Director General Of Police on 8 January, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.377 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.377 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3842 of 2022
G.Thiruvanantham ... Appellant / Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai - 4.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range, Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. the Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul, Dindigul District. ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to set aside
the order dated 21.02.2022 passed in W.P.(MD).No.21222 of 2019 on the
file of this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.377 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Sennior Counsel,
For M/s.Ajmal Associates.
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Addl. Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.M.Siddharthan,
Addl. Government Pleader.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)
Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Additional
Government Pleader for the respondents.
2.The appellant was working as Inspector of Police, Kannivadi
Police Station in the year 2014. One Anbuselvan was running a hollow
brick kiln within the limits of Kannivadi Police Station. A girl by name
Muthulakshmi was found missing. Around the same time, a north Indian
worker employed by the said Anbuselvam had apparently gone on leave.
With regard to the missing of Muthulakshmi, a criminal case was
registered. Habeas corpus petition was also filed for tracing her. The
appellant had allegedly harassed the owner of brick kiln unit and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
demanded a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs to cover the expenses for tracing the girl.
In this regard, charge memo dated 13.01.2017 was issued. Enquiry was
conducted and the enquiry officer returned a finding of “not proved”.
This finding was accepted by the disciplinary authority who vide order
dated 11.05.2018 dropped further action in the matter. The Additional
Director General of Police (L & O), Chennai – 4 took suo motu revision
and vide proceeding dated 11.10.2018 passed the following order:-
“4) Hence, the disciplinary authority (viz) the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram Range has
dropped further action in PR No.03/2017 against Thiru G.
Thiruvanandam, Inspector of Police.
5) I have gone through the PR file and other connected
records carefully. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the
Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai has accepted
the findings of the Enquiry Officer as there are no procedural
infirmities found in the conduct of the departmental enquiry.
However, in the departmental proceedings sequel to V&AC
enquiry, if it is ultimately proposed to drop further action or not
to proceed further, the Vigilance Commission shall be consulted
through the Administrative Department concerned of the
Secretariat for its concurrence before the issue of orders
dropping action vide Government letter No.82610/82-19 P&AR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(Per N) Dept, dated 19.08.1986. But, the disciplinary authority
(viz.) the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram
Range has dropped further action in PR No.03/2017 u/r 3(b) of
TNPSS(D&A) Rules, 1955 without obtaining the concurrence of
the Vigilance Commission through the Administrative
Departmental concerned of the Secretariat. In view of the
procedural infirmities, I hereby order that the further action
dropped by the disciplinary authority in this PR in the reference
20 cited is hereby set aside with liberty to pass fresh orders after
obtaining concurrence of the Vigilance Commission.”
3.Subsequently, a fresh charge memo dated 27.06.2019 was issued.
The imputation of misconduct reads as follows:-
“ANNEXURE-1
Statement of charges framed against Thiru G Thiruvanantham,
Inspector of Police, Serious Crime Squad, Ramanathapuram
District formerly Kannivad? Police station, Dindigul District.
Count:
"Indisciplinary conduct in having miserably neglected other
avenues of investigation in tracing the missing girl and knowing
very well that Thiru M.Anbuchelvan was no way responsible for
the missing girl he was mentally harassed merely on the
suspicion that one of his employee who had gone on leave and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
hot return back to the company would abducted the girl and thus
you had violated the rules 24 (i) of the Tamil Nadu Government
Servant conduct Rules 1964".
Challenging the second charge memo, the appellant filed
W.P.(MD)No.21222 of 2019. The learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition vide order 21.02.2022. Challenging the same, this
intra-court appeal has been filed.
4.The learned senior counsel for the appellant reiterated all the
contentions projected in the grounds of appeal and relied on the decisions
reported in 2009 (4) CTC 209 (Mohammed Sadique Vs. Union of
India) and 2014 (2) CTC 769 (R.Rajkumar Vs. The Commissioner of
Police, Trichy City, Trichy). He called upon this Court to set aside the
impugned order and allow the writ appeal as prayed for.
5.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that the Writ Court should not lightly interfere with a charge memo. He
drew our attention to quite a few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
which state that unless the Court is convinced that the charge memo is
suffering from want of jurisdiction, the delinquent should be directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
face the enquiry. He submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned
and that interference is not warranted.
6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the materials on record. We are more than satisfied that the foundational
materials for both the charge memos are one and the same.
7.The first charge was issued on 13.01.2017. The disciplinary
authority dropped further action in the matter vide order dated
11.05.2018. This order was set aside by the Additional Director General
of Police (L & O) on 11.10.2018. Therefore, the irresistible inference is
that the first charge memo cannot be said to have been closed on the day
when the second charge memo was issued.
8.Be that as it may, two coordinate Division Benches [2009 (4)
CTC 209 (Mohammed Sadique Vs. Union of India) and 2014 (2) CTC
769 (R.Rajkumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City,
Trichy)] have held that when the materials forming the basis of second
charge memo were available at the time of framing first charge memo,
the disciplinary authority cannot be permitted to conduct the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
departmental enquiry in a piece-meal manner. Both the citations relied
on by the learned senior counsel are apposite to the facts on hand.
9.In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the
writ appeal is allowed as prayed for. It is needless to mention that it is
open to the respondents to proceed as per the order dated 11.10.2018.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.P. J.,)
08.01.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:-
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai - 4.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Dindigul Range, Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. the Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
ias
08.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
