O R D E R
Heard Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the suspension order of the 9th respondent in C.No.K1/10217/183/2017 CPO:240/2017 dated 24.05.2017 and consequential impugned order issued by the 8th respondent in C.No.K1/18117/2021 CPO:424/2022 dated 02.06.2022 not allowing the petitioner to retire from service and the consequential
3/12
Charge Memo issued by the 4th respondent in Tha.Ko.No. 29/tha.pi/ki.ma/2022 dated 20.10.2022 and quash all the three orders as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from service w.e.f., 31.05.2017 and disburse all the retirement and monetary benefits with accrued interest thereon.
3. The petitioner was not allowed to retire and he was kept under suspension by passing an order of suspension dated 24.05.2017 just a week before the date of his superannuation i.e., on 31.05.2017. The petitioner has been facing a criminal case in C.C.No.127 of 2011 before the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai. After the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner got acquitted on 29.08.2019. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he was acquitted, a Charge Memo has been issued to him for the same set of allegations which were the subject matter of the criminal proceedings mentioned above. In fact, the occurrence that is involved in the above criminal proceedings is relating to the year 2002. So far, no disciplinary action has been initiated against him.
4/12
4. Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been removed from service in view of his subsequent involvement in yet another criminal case in C.C.No.18 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur, in which, he got convicted. However, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2019 and the same was allowed on 15.07.2021.
5. It is to be noted that the petitioner was removed from service consequent to his conviction in C.C.No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur vide proceedings dated 03.07.2019. Hence, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.4740 of 2022 before this Court praying to direct the respondents to review the order of removal from service and allow him to retire from service as he got the conviction order set aside vide order dated 15.07.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2019. Consequent to the direction issued in the writ petition on 18.03.2022, the eighth respondent has passed the order dated 02.06.2022 by not allowing the petitioner to retire from service.
5/12
6. Now, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of suspension dated 24.05.2017 which was given to him just prior to one week of his attaining superannuation and the order dated 02.06.2022 not allowing him to retire from service and the Charge Memo dated
20.10.2022.
7. Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that since the criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner, no disciplinary action has been initiated against him.
8. Even now, the position has not been changed and the criminal appeal filed by the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.409 of 2020 against the Judgment of the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai is pending. However, if the fourth respondent deems it fit, there is no bar to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner even though the criminal case is pending. Nothing prevented him from initiating any action for the past 20 years. In fact, the
6/12
petitioner was not even kept under suspension for all these years despite he was facing serious criminal charge in C.C.No.127 of 2011 before the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
9. On perusal of the records, it is seen that it is a trap case which ended in acquittal after an exhaustive trial before the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the co-delinquent who was also given with a Charge Memo has challenged the said Charge Memo in W.P.No.14937 of 2022 before the Principal Bench of this Court and the writ petition was allowed on 07.11.23023 by quashing the Charge Memo.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner attracted the attention of this Court to the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to hold that if a Charge Memo is issued without any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the same, that will be unfair and
7/12
unreasonable; the inordinate delay itself can serve as a ground for quashing the Charge Memo.
(i) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738.
(ii) State of Punjab and Others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570.
(iii) P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D, T.N.Housing Board reported in
(2005) 6 SCC 636.
(iv) Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana and others reported in
2008 (3) CTC 781.
12. In the instant case, there is an inordinate delay of 20 years and that will definitely prejudice the interest of the petitioner in making any valid defence. The above Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been followed in various Judgments of this Court and orders have been passed by quashing the Charge Memo which was given at a very belated stage.
8/12
13. Even though the petitioner herein has attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2017, he was neither allowed to retire nor his order of suspension was revoked. Having placed the petitioner under suspension for nearly six years, now, the respondents have chosen, all of a sudden, to issue a Charge Memo, as though, something was preventing them from initiating such action any time before.
14. Considering the fact that the co-delinquent who was issued with a Charge Memo, had got it quashed in W.P.No.14937 of 2022, I feel that the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. So far as the pending appeal is concerned, it is an appeal against acquittal.
15. Even though, the learned Government Advocate submits that the order of suspension should be kept pending till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal, the fact remains that co-delinquent who was facing disciplinary proceedings got his suspension revoked and he was allowed to retire and receive his terminal benefits as well. Hence, different yardstick cannot be adopted against the petitioner which will be contrary
9/12
to the principles of equality and I feel it is appropriate to extend the same benefit to the petitioner.
16. In view of the above stated reasons, the writ petition is
allowed and the Charge Memo issued by the fourth respondent in Tha.Ko.No.29/tha.pi/ki.ma/2022 dated 20.10.2022 is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders notionally retiring the petitioner from service on the date of his attaining the age of superannuation and disburse all the retirement-cum-pensionary benefits within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
30.04.2024
NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mbi
To
1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Department (F1), Secretariat, Chennai.
10/12
2.The Director General of Police, O/o.the Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Chennai - 600 004. 3.The Commissioner of Police, O/o.the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Veppery, Chennai - 07.
4.The Additional Commissioner of Police, O/o.the Additional Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Ayanavaram Region, Chennai - 07.
5.The Joint Commissioner of Police, O/o.the Joint Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Greater Chennai Police, Veppery, Chennai - 08.
6.The Joint Commissioner of Police, O/o.the Joint Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Greater Chennai Police, Veppery, Chennai - 08.
7.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, O/o.the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk, Chennai District.
8.The Inspector General of Police/ Commissioner of Police, O/o.the Inspector General of Police/ Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.
9.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range / I/C Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.
11/12
R.N.MANJULA, J.
mbi
W.P.(MD)No.2124 of 2024
30.04.2024
12/12