@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashThe petitioner has come forward to challenge the charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules in PR No. 33/2008, dated 22.8.2008 as well as the letter issued by the first respondent, Director General of Police,
dated 18.2.2010.
2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was earlier working as an Inspector of Police, Mangalamedu in Perambalur District. He
investigated crime No. 916 of 1998 and filed a charge sheet before an appropriate court. The case relating to a murder of one Jayaraman and
Kolanchinathan filed u/s 302 IPC. The case was ultimately tried against four accused in the Principal District Sessions Court at Perambalur as
Sessions case No. 52/2002. The petitioner was examined as P.W.12. Finally, the Sessions Court held that the case was not properly investigated
and since they did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused were acquitted.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, a Revision was filed before this Court by P.W.7, who was a widow of one of the victim who was murdered. In the
criminal revision being Crl.R.C. No. 1066 of 2003, the petitioner was cited as first respondent. The revision case was dismissed by this Court on
18.4.2007. However, in paragraph 14, this Court made the following observations:
14. It is pertinent to note in this case that the Investigating Officer Mr. S. Gnanasekaran (P.W.12) has not discharged his duties properly and to the
satisfaction of his conscience. I record my displeasure in this case as to the slipshod and lethargic manner in which the investigation has been
conducted by P.W.12 the Investigating Officer Mr. S. Gnanasekaran. A copy of the order to be marked to the Director General of Police for
taking appropriate action against P.W.12, Mr. S. Gnanasekaran, who had bungled in the investigation in this double murder case. I am of the view
that it is a fit case in which as a moral obligation the Government shall give suitable compensation to the legal heirs of the victims viz. Kolinginathan
and Jayaraman which shall not be less than Rs. 2,00,000/- (per unit) within a period of six months. After paying the compensation to the legal heirs
of the deceased, the Government is at liberty to recover the same from P.W.12, the Investigating Officer, Mr. S. Gnanasekaran.
(Emphasis added)
4. It is now claimed that as against the order passed in the revision, the State has filed a SLP before the Supreme Court. The State has filed the
appeal in the name of the Inspector of Police. Since there was a delay of 885 days, a miscellaneous petition was filed in SLP(MP) No. 617 of
2010. When that petition came up on 18.1.2010, the State Government was directed to file an affidavit explaining the delay.
5. The petitioner was given a charge memo on 22.8.2008 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The
charge against the petitioner was based upon the strictures passed by this Court vide its judgment dated 18.4.2007 in Crl.R.C. No. 1066 of 2007
as referred elsewhere. To the charge made in PR No. 33/2008, the petitioner sent a reply dated 5.11.2008 and requested to drop the
proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters), Chennai Suburban Commissionerate was appointed as an Enquiry Officer on
the charge memo issued against the petitioner. The said Enquiry Officer sent an enquiry notice, dated 20.11.2009 to the petitioner to appear for
the enquiry on 25.11.2009.
6. The petitioner sent a letter to the first respondent Director General of Police on 21.11.2009 and informed that since the State had preferred a
SLP against the order passed by this Court and the petition was likely to come up for hearing, the enquiry may be deferred. In response to that
letter, the first respondent informed the enquiry officer to defer the oral enquiry for three weeks facilitating the Superintendent of Police,
Perambalur to file the Special leave petition. Thereafter, the SLP was also filed by the State. When the petitioner further sent a letter pursuant to
the enquiry notice, dated 2.2.2010 representing that the case may be deferred pending special leave petition, he was informed by the first
respondent that the SLP before the Supreme Court is relating to compensation awarded by this Court and not against the adverse comment
regarding the perfunctory investigation done.
7. The enquiry against the petitioner had already started and the recording of evidence of P.W.2 was also over. The petitioner was also given a
further time to appear on 27.3.2010 listing out the name of witnesses to be examined. It is at this juncture, the petitioner has come forward to file
the present writ petition.
8. The petitioner had stated that subsequent to the State Appeal, he had also filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. But when oral mentioning
was made his SLP in Crl.M.P. No. 4562 of 2010 was directed to be listed on the date fixed for the case. His oral prayer was not considered.
9. Mr. M. Ravi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that when the State itself has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, they
cannot proceed with the enquiry in respect of the judgment in which certain adverse comments were made against him. Alternatively, he submitted
that his SLP was also pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, disciplinary action should be kept on hold. This court is not inclined to accept
the stand taken by the petitioner.
10. First of all, on a representation made by the petitioner, the Director General of Police had clarified that the State Appeal was confined to
award of compensation and not against the strictures passed against the petitioner. Though the counsel for the petitioner contended that there were
very many grounds made thereunder, but the appeal itself is defective and yet to be entertained by the Supreme Court. Even otherwise, if the stand
of the State is that the appeal is to be confined only to the order of compensation, the petitioner cannot take an umbrage under the steps taken by
the State. Though he might have filed a SLP, that is yet to be taken up for hearing.
11. Further, so long as strictures passed by this Court in the criminal revision case is not erased, the respondents are bound to take action against
the petitioner for his perfunctory investigation as noted by this Court. The petitioner cannot collaterally attack the order passed by this Court in the
criminal revision. If the petitioner''s remedy as understood by him is before the Supreme Court, then this Court cannot be approached only for the
purpose of an interim relief. Unless and until the petitioner gets a reprieve from the Supreme Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ
petition especially in the teeth of the strictures passed by this Court in the criminal revision case. More often, complaint is heard from several
quarters that respondents never take action against police officials even when strictures made by this Court criticizing the role of the investigating
officers. At least, in the present case, it is worthwhile to note that the respondents have acted with alacrity and have initiated action.
12. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
