Skip to content


G.Sundaramoorthy Vs. the Additional Commissioner of Police - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantG.Sundaramoorthy
RespondentThe Additional Commissioner of Police
Excerpt:
.....centre along with their counsel. parties arrived at a amicable settlement as per the terms in the mediation agreement enclosed herewith. hence the matter is sent back to the hon'ble court. 4.as the parties have arrived at a settlement in terms of the mediation agreement, dated 5.7.2013, this petition is listed for passing orders in terms of the said mediation agreement. 5.the mediation agreement, dated 5.7.2013, signed by the parties and their respective counsels, reads as follows: both sides, out of their own volition and without any pressure or coercion from any side have agreed as follows: 1.the defacto complainant/madhavi and the 2nd petitioner thiraviam along with the two other petitioners arrived at a settlement to resolve their differences amicably in private. 2.the defacto.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.11408 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 G.Sundaramoorthy ..Petitioner versus The Additional Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Head QuarteRs.Greater Chennai, Chennai 600 020..Respondent PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to suspension order RC No.53/39403/P.R.II(1) 2013 CPO No.943/2013 dated 10.04.2013 passed by the respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper and thereby direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as Sub Inspector of Police, 9th Platoon 'B' Company Armed Reserve, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.C.Muthu Santhan For Respondents : Mr.I.Arockiasamy Government Advocate ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner is employed as Sub Inspector of Police.

His wife is also a woman Sub Inspector of Police.

The brother of the petitioner, Thiraviyam is a Grade II Police Constable.

It seems that he had affair with another lady Police Constable by name Ms.Madhavi.

The said Ms.Madhavi gave a complaint dated 04.04.2013 in F.I.R.No.03/2013 on the file of Tiruvallikeni All Women Police station under sections 417, 493, 506(i) I.P.C.The allegation made therein is that the wife of the petitioner slapped the complainant Ms.Madhavi.

According to the complaint, the father and mother of the petitioner demanded dowry for the marriage with the brother of the petitioner.

The only allegation against the petitioner is that he instigated others in the family.

The following line is the only line in the complaint against the petitioner: mjw;F jpU/jputpak; mth;fspd; K:j;j rnfhjuh; jpU/Re;juK:h;j;jpapd; Jhz;Ljny Kf;fpa fhuzk; Based on the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the respondent by the impugned order dated 10.04.2013 under Rule 3 (e)(1)(ii) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955.

The suspension order is solely based on the criminal complaint.

It was not based on any contemplated departmental action.

3.During the couRs.of arguments, it is stated that a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the wife of the petitioner under Rule 3(a) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules i.e., the petitioner's wife who is said to have slapped the complainant was proceeded against Rule 3(a) and she was not placed under suspension, as the proceeding was initiated under Rule 3(a) only.

4.As far as the petitioner is concerned, no departmental proceedings is initiated against him.

He was only placed under suspension under Rule 3(e)(1)(ii) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955, solely on the basis of the criminal complaint given by Ms.Madhavi.

In these circumstances, the petitioner, his wife and his brother approached this court in Crl.O.P.No.8955 of 2013 for anticipatory bail.

In view of the aforesaid complaint made by Ms.Madhavi, the matter was referred to Tamilnadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

A settlement was arrived before the Mediation Centre and the same was recorded by this court by order dated 16.08.2013 in Crl.O.P.No.8955 of 2013 as follows: 3.

A communication, dated 15.07.2013, of the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court of Madras, enclosing a copy of its Mediation Report, dated 5.7.2013, has been received, and in the said Mediation Report, it is stated as follows:- Petitioners and the Defacto Complainant appeared before the Centre along with their counsel.

Parties arrived at a amicable settlement as per the terms in the Mediation Agreement enclosed herewith.

Hence the matter is sent back to the Hon'ble Court. 4.As the parties have arrived at a settlement in terms of the Mediation Agreement, dated 5.7.2013, this petition is listed for passing orders in terms of the said Mediation Agreement.

5.The Mediation Agreement, dated 5.7.2013, signed by the parties and their respective counsels, reads as follows: Both sides, out of their own volition and without any pressure or coercion from any side have agreed as follows: 1.The Defacto complainant/Madhavi and the 2nd petitioner Thiraviam along with the two other petitioners arrived at a settlement to resolve their differences amicably in private.

2.The defacto complainant is willing to withdraw her complaint against the petitioners filed in F4 Thousand lights Police Station, Chennai (Crime No.not known of 2013).3.The 2nd petitioner and the defacto complainant agree to resolve their future life options amicably.

4.Both parties admit that they have already exchanged the articles belonging to each other.

5.It is submitted that as the petitioners and the defacto complainant arrived at a settlement mutually amongst themselves in the above lines and as defacto complainant has no intent to proceed further with her complaint.

6.In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, which is recorded under the Mediation Agreement, dated 5.7.2013, and in terms of the Mediation Report, dated 5.7.2013, before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court of Madras, this petition is disposed of, recording the terms of the Mediation Agreement, dated 5.7.2013.

The terms of the Mediation Agreement, dated 5.7.2013 and the Mediation Report, dated 5.7.2013, of the Mediation Centre, shall form part of the order. 5.As per the aforesaid order and the settlement between the parties, Ms.Madhavi withdrew the complaint.

Taking into account the aforesaid fact and also the nature of vague allegation made in the complaint against the petitioner, I am of the view that the respondent exceeded his power in placing the petitioner under suspension particularly, when the Rule contemplates that only in the case of public interest requires suspension.

It is purely a dispute in the family and no overtact was attributed to the petitioner.

It is a different matter if any overtact was attributed against the petitioner.

I am of the view that there is no public interest involved to place the petitioner under suspension, in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Hence, I am of the view that there is no reason to place the petitioner under suspension.

It is relevant to extract Rule 3(e)(1)(ii) of TN Police (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, which is as follows: 3(e)(1) A member of service may be placed under suspension from service, where- (i) an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated or is pending, or (ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or he is under trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest. In this case, Rule 3(e)(1)(ii) contemplates that only in the case of public interest, the police personnel can be placed under suspension.

In my view, no public interest is involved in this case particularly, when the allegation itself is very vague and no imputation is made in the complaint against the petitioner.

6.At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent produced the order of the respondent dated 19.12.2013, revoking the suspension of the petitioner without prejudice to the departmental proceedings.

In my view, there is no criminal case against the petitioner, since the complainant had chosen to withdraw the complaint.

As far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, the petitioner was not placed under suspension under clause 3(e)(1)(i) of the Rules.

As on date, there is no departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner.

Hence, the suspension of the petitioner is solely based on Rule 3(e)(1)(ii).based on the criminal complaint in this case.

The respondent did not apply his mind when passing the order dated 19.12.2013, revoking the order of suspension.

Further, before passing the aforesaid order, this court passed the order dated 16.08.2013 in Crl.O.P.No.8955 of 2013 and the same was also not taken note of.

7.Therefore, the order of this court dated 16.08.2013 in Crl.O.P.No.8955 of 2013 should have been taken into account.

The petitioner has to be restored to duty with pay and the impugned order of suspension dated 10.04.2013 is quashed, directing the respondent to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as duty period and to pay the wages for the suspension period to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

No costs.

The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

25.06.2014 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Vri To The Additional Commissioner of Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Head QuarteRs.Greater Chennai, Chennai 600 020.

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.

vri W.P.NO.11408 of 2013 25.06.2014


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //