In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 13/07/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM
Writ Petition No.22432 of 2005
and
WPMP.No.24459 of 2005
1. Superintendent of Police
Salem District, Salem.
2. The Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Armed Reserve,
Salem. .. Petitioners
-Vs-
1. S. Manickam
2. The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai-600 104. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari as stated therein.
For petitioners : Mr. S. Srinivasan
Government Advocate
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)
Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal, Chennai, dated 17.10.2001 made in O.A.No.3880 of 1998, the
Superintendent of Police, Salem and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed
Reserve, Salem filed the above writ petition.
2. In the light of the order to be passed hereunder, it is
unnecessary to refer the factual matrix as stated in the affidavit. However,
it is relevant to note that the first respondent herein was issued a charge
memo, which reads as under.
“Unbecoming of a Police Officer by allowing your wife Tmt. Gunaseeli in
having indulged in unnecessary wordy quarrels with the neighbours in Armed
Reserve line hut, Salem and also badly misused the provisions of the PCR Act
in your favour along with your wife and thus paved way for disharmony, unrest
and indiscipline in Armed Reserve lines, Salem. ”
The said charge memo was questioned by the first respondent herein / applicant
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considered the said charge memo along with
other materials placed before it. It found that the charge memo would show
that the same relates to alleged quarrel or statement made by his wife with
the neighbours in the quarters allotted to Armed Reserve personnel and taking
note of the fact that even the complaint said to have been given by the first
respondent herein along with his wife under Protection of Civil Rights Act
against the police constable Mayakannan was subsequently withdrawn, and came
to a conclusion that there is no sufficient cause to pursue the above referred
charge memo, quashed the same and allowed the petition filed by the first
respondent.
3. The learned Government Advocate would contend that since
the enquiry revealed that the complaint / telegram made by the first
respondent’s wife i.e., violation of Protection of Civil Rights Act is false,
the Department is fully justified in initiating action against him. We are
unable to accept the said contention. As rightly discussed and observed by
the Tribunal, first of all, even according to the Department, the alleged
quarrel was between the applicant’s wife with her neighbours and the first
respondent has nothing to do with the same. Further, a complaint was given by
the first respondent and his wife against one Mayakannan, Police Constable,
and the same was subsequently withdrawn. In such a circumstance, as rightly
observed by the Tribunal that there is no cause to pursue the charge levelled
against the first respondent herein, we are in agreement with the conclusion
arrived at by the Tribunal and we do not find any valid ground for
interference.
4. In addition to the same, it is to be noted that the
Tribunal has set aside the charge memo even as early as on 17.10.2001, but the
present writ petition has been filed only in the month of June, 2005. In the
absence of proper explanation, we are not inclined to entertain the above writ
petition both on merits as well as on the ground of delay. Hence, we are of
the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed; accordingly,
dismissed. Consequently, connected WPMP., is also dismissed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
kh
To
The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal, Chennai.