W.P. Nos. 14729 to 14732 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1 to 1 of 2009. Case: 1. K. Annamalai, 2. M. Shanmugam, 3. B. Jayaraman, 4. C. Velumani Vs 1. Superintendent of Police, 2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 3. Director General of Police. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. Nos. 14729 to 14732 of 2009 and M.P. Nos. 1 to 1 of 2009 |
| Counsel | K. Venkatramani, M. Muthappan, R. Neelakantan |
| Judges | K. Chandru, J. |
| Issue | Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 35, 408, 471 |
| Judgement Date | December 11, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
K. Chandru, J.
1. The four petitioners have filed the four writ petitions, seeking for a direction to the respondents to keep their disciplinary proceedings, dated 27.2.2008 in abeyance pending disposal of the criminal case in C.C.Nos.49 and 50 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Vellore.
2. The first writ petitioner is a Head Constable of Vandavasi North Police Station and is presently under suspension. The second writ petitioner is also a Head Constable attached to Tiruvannamalai East Police Station, who is also under suspension. The third writ petitioner working as a Head Constable in Melchengam Police Station is also under suspension. In the fourth writ petition, the petitioner was a Head Constable at District Armed Reserve, Thiruvannamalai District and he is also under suspension. In all these writ petitions, status quo order was passed on 29.7.2009.
3. It is seen from the final report, dated 13.11.2006 that the petitioners, who are the members of Thiruvannamalai District Police Department Employees' Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, being office bearers, have misappropriated several amounts. Therefore, they were charged under Sections 408 and 471 read with Section 35 IPC. Subsequently, the petitioners were given charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In the charge memo, it was stated that the petitioners were guilty of falsifying records and after obtaining cheques from the society, they encashed the same. Even while they were on duty, disregarding the office work, they went to the District Co-operative Society and after taking cheques, they encashed the same in the District Central Co-operative Bank.
4. The petitioners initially challenged the charge memo in W.P.Nos.8585 of 2008, 9071 of 2008, 9569 of 2008 and 9568 of 2008 before this court. However, this court did not go into the merits of the charge memo, but merely directed the respondents to consider their representations. It is pursuant to the direction, the respondents held by an order, dated 17.7.2009, held that on the basis of the existing orders and the directions of the Supreme Court, there is no bar for conducting domestic enquiry even pending criminal case. It was also stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandavasi was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, enquiry notice was also given.
5. The contention of the petitioners was that pending criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial