The charge memo dated 13.04.2015 issued under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules 1955, against the writ petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was working as Special Sub-Inspector in Hosur Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District and was placed under suspension in proceedings dated 12.02.2015, on contemplation of enquiry and initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Pursuant to the order of suspension, a charge memo was issued in proceedings dated 13.04.2015 and the charges against the writ petitioner are extracted hereunder:
Fw;wr;rhl;L 06/02/2015?e; njjp XN:h; beL";rhiy nuhe;jpw;fhf (Mobile-III) epakpf;fg;gl;l muR thfdk; vz;/TN 24 G?0559?y; fhiy 08/00 kzp Kjy; 07/02/2015?e; njjp fhiy 08/00 kzp tiu bghWg;g[ mjpfhhpahf ,Ue;j ePtph; kw;Wk; ck;Kld; gzpapypUe;j jkpH;ehL rpwg;g[ fhty; 7k; mzp fhtyh; 5274 c&hdhth!;. Xl;Leh; fhtyh; fz;zd; Mfpa K:tUk; fpUc&;zfphp ? XN:h; rhiyapy; JR bgl;nuhy; g';f; mUfpy; 06/02/2015?e; njjp ,ut[ Rkhh; 08/45 kzpf;F nghFk;nghJ fpUc&;zfphp gf;fkpUe;J XN:h; nehf;fp te;j mnrhf; nyyz;l; yhhp vz; TN 30 AR 1189I epWj;;jp me;j yhhp oiuthplk; ePtph; gzk; nfl;ljw;F yhhpapd; oiuth; juhjjhy; ck;Kld; gzpapYUe;j jkpH;ehL rpwg;g[ fhty; 7k; mzp fhtyh; 5274 c&hdhth!pl;k me;j kzy; oiuth; gzk; jUthh; eP th';fp it vd;W mtiu m';nfna ,wf;fptpl;Lk;. mjd;go fhtyh; c&hdhth!; nkw;go kzy; yhhpapd; oiuthplk; gzk; U:/800-? th';fp itj;Js;shh;/ fhty;Jiwapy; bghWg;g[s;s rpwg;g[ cjtp Ma;thsuhf gzpg[hpa[k; ePtph; kzy; flj;Jgth;fis fz;Lgpoj;J jFe;j rl;l eltof;if vLf;fhky; fhty;Jiwapd; ew;bgaUf;F fs';fk; Vw;gLk; tifapy; kzy; flj;jpa yhhp oiuthplk; gzk; th';fp itf;f mjpfhuj;ij Jc&;gpunahfk; bra;J jd;Dld; gzpg[hpa[k; fhtyiu bfhz;L gzk; bgw fhuzkhf ,Ue;j fz;of;fj;jf;f xG';fPdkhd flik jtwpa bray;
3. On perusal of the charges, the same is relating to the demand of bribe from the Driver of a lorry in the National Highways. Instead of submitting explanation/objection and participating in the departmental disciplinary proceedings, the writ petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition, challenging the very charge memo. The writ petitioner has raised the ground that the disciplinary authority has not permitted him to have the assistance of a legal counsel.
4. This court is unable to understand that when the charge memo itself in challenge and the ground of providing legal assistance does not arise at all. It is needless to state that the disciplinary authority has to proceed with the enquiry in accord with the rules and all the opportunities provided under the rules to be extended to the delinquent officials. Thus, the grounds raised in this writ petition have no merit for consideration. With regard to the allegations, a criminal case was also registered and the same is pending.
5. Therefore, this Court is of the view that an enquiry into the charges are very much eminent and the petitioner cannot be exonerated from the charges at this stage. It is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanations/objections on the charge memo and prove his innocence before the enquiry proceedings. The grounds raised in this writ petition for quashing the charge memo are neither candid nor convincing.
6. A writ against the charge memo can be filed only on the limited grounds. If the charge memo was issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or allegation of mala fides are raised or if the charge memo was issued in violation of the statutory rules. Even in case of raising allegation of mala fides, the authority against whom such allegation is made to be impleaded as party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity.
7. In the absence of any one of these grounds, no writ can be entertained against the charge memo. The charge memo was issued after initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner with regard to the allegation of demand of bribe. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings initiated should be allowed to complete in all respects and the same should reach its logical conclusion in accordance with the rules.
8. Intermittent intervention in disciplinary proceedings are certainly not preferable and the Constitutional Courts can exercise the power of judicial review against the charge memo only on exceptional circumstances. However, no such exception has been brought by the writ petitioner in this writ petition.
9. The writ petition is filed only with an idea of prolonging and protracting the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, this Court is of the view that the manner in which the writ petition is filed, cannot be appreciated and the attitude of the writ petitioner is deprecated.
10. In this view of the matter, no further adjudication on the grounds raised in this writ petition is required to be considered.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J., cgi Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
06.09.2017 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No cgi/svn To
1. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Hosur Sub-division, Hosur.
2. The Superintendent of Police District Police Office, Krishnagiri.
W.P.No.27516 of 2015