The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8052 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The prosecution case is that one Mr.M.Rajeswaran, Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Annasalai, Chennai-2 has made a complaint against the (1) petitioner/Bhaskaran (2) K. Palanivel, Foreman, Grade II, Tamilandu Electricity Board, Villivakkam and (3) S. Kalyanam, Commercial Inspector, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Royapuram, Chennai-13 before the Central Crime Branch, Chennai city, Chennai.
3. The crime branch, after receipt of the said complaint registered a case in Crime No.630 of 2000 on an alleged offence under
Sections 419,420 r/w 109 of I.P.C. The respondent police investigated the matter and filed a final report under
Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. The final report reveals that in the year 1994, based on the Khalid Committee and Supreme Court orders, temporary labourers were made permanent labourers. The contract labourer, C.Karunakaran, who is an accident victim at the work spot, was asked to appear for the interview on 27.12.1994. That being so, the accused-1, with the help of accused A2 and A3, who were holding important position in C.I.T.U and also in the selection committee panel, by way of impersonation etc., got appointment in the place of C. Karunakaran and cheated the complainant.
4. Further, the accused No.1, noted above, who was working as a casual labourer presented himself as Karunakaran in order to obtain regular employment in the place of Karunakaran, who lost his vision, blurred in an electrical accident in the year 1992 and the accused-1, being a contract labourer, in order to get himself regularised, attended the interview in the year 1994 as Karunakaran. However, subsequently, from 03.01.1997, he did not attend the job. Later, as his name was recommended and enlisted as per the Khalid Commission report as a contract labourer, he got absorbed as helper in regular cadre in his own name.
5. The accused A2 and A3, knowingly abetted the act of impersonation by accused A1, enabled him to secure the appointment in the place of genuine candidate, Karunakaran, who did not opt to attend the interview due to his vision, affected in an electrical accident. Thus, the accused A1, appears to have made himself, liable for an offence punishable under
Section 419 I.P.C for impersonating himself as Karunakaran and under Section
420 I.P.C for cheating the Tamilandu Electricity Board. While accused A2 and A3 appeared to have committed an offence under
Section 419,420 and r/w 109 of I.P.C for having abetted A1 in securing the employment. In the said case, A1 to A3 were arrested and remanded to Judicial custody. They were lodged in Central Prison, Chennai. This is the prosecution case.
6. The petitioner has alleged in his petition that on 01.08.2000, the Superintending Engineer, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, North, gave a Complaint to the Respondent Police stating that on 27.12.1994, the Original Certificate and Service Certificate were issued by the Territorial Assistant Engineer for considering C.Karunakaran, for the purpose of regular appointment based on the Justice Khalid Commission Report. The said Karunakaran did not attend the interview stating that some persons threatened him not to attend the interview. hereafter, he came to know that A1, P.Bhaskaran joined duty as Helper in his place by impersonation. The said P.Bhaskaran worked as regular Helper in the name of Karunakaran. It was verified by the authorities in the year 1997 and an enquiry of Vigilance also held. The petitioner further alleged that he has been implicated by the respondent on the allegation that he was a Selection Committee Member representing CITU and had wrongly identified P.Bhaskaran as C.Karunakaran with ulterior motive. Even though, the occurrence took place in the year 1994, the complaint was given only in the year 2000 and Charge Sheet was filed only on 19.12.2006 in C.C.No.8052 of 2006 before the Learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
7. That the accused A1 noted above who was working as a Casual Labourer presented himself as Karunakaran in order to obtain regular employment in the place of Karunakaran who lost his vision blurred in an electrical accident in the year 1992 and the accused being the contract labourer in order to get himself regularised attended the interview in the year 1994 as Karunakaran. However, subsequently from 03.01.1997 he did not attend the job. Later as his name was recommended and enlisted as per the Khalid Commission Report as a contract labourer he got absorbed as Helper in regular cadre in his own name.
8. The accused A2 and A3 knowingly abetted the act of impersonation by accused A1 enabled him to secure the appointment in the place of genuine candidate Karunakaran who did not opt to attend the interview due to his vision affected in an electrical accident.
9. Thus the accused A1 appears to have made himself liable for an offence punishable under
Section 419 of IPC for impersonating himself as Karunakaran and under Section
420 of IPC for cheating the management. While accused A2 and A3 appeared to have committed an offence under
Section 419,420 r/w 109 of IPC for having abetted A1 in securing the employment.
10. The petitioner submits that for the same set of charges the department of Electricity also framed the following charges against him.
"That Thiru.K.Palanivelu, Foreman II Grade, Tamilnadu Electricity Board Press, who was nominated as a Selection Committee Member, representing CITU Union, Board's Memo No.036480/R1/2/90-32, dated 06.08.1991. has wrongly identified Thiru.P.Bhaskaran, as Thiru.C.Karunakaran, who was the actual candidate during the interview held on 28.12.1994 with a malafide intention to get employment in the Board to Thiru.P.Bhaskaran, in place of Thiru C.Karunakaran, by way of impersonation. The above act constitutes mis-conduct as per Clause 30(iv) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Standing Orders applicable to the Workman engaged in non-clerical department."
11. The said charge memo issued by the Department on 22.10.2000 and the petitioner gave a reply to the said charge memo and final order passed by the authorities on 10.07.2002 and gave a punishment of "Stoppage of next increment for three years with cumulative effect including the period if any spent on leave".
The said order challenged by the petitioner before the Chairman of Electricity Board and the appeal also dismissed on 19.03.2003 in Per B.B. (Chairman) No.56. Thereafter the petitioner did not file any appeal against the said order. Now the respondent police filed the above said charge sheet before the A.C.M.M., Chennai-8.
12. The petitioner has further alleged that on the same set of charges, an enquiry was conducted by the Department and he was awarded a punishment for violating the Board Standing Orders manual applicable for workmen and he was punished by his superiors by way of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Hence, the petitioner contends that the respondent need not implicate the petitioner for the same set of charges. Further, the petitioner has alleged that the said Karunakaran or the accused A1 Bhaskaran and any other person mentioned in the FIR have not spoken about the petitioners involvement in this case.
13. After perusal of the prosecution case and contentions of the petitioner, and verification of the typed set of papers and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Court is of the view that the petitioner was punished by the complainant/Department by way of disciplinary proceedings, and the punishment was stoppage of increments for three years with cumulative effect. This is a departmental action, but regarding criminal cases, the Court is the competent forum to determine the genuineness of the case. So, the C.C.No.8052 of 2006 has to be tried. Therefore, the Criminal Original Petition No.6465 of 2007 has got to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
mps/mra To
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch/II, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 104