P.Chinnaraju v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 22.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition No.20595 of 2016 and WMP No.17698 of 2016 P.Chinnaraju ...
Petitioner
Versus
1. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tiruvanamalai.
2. The Inquiry Officer, The Deputy Superindent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Sub-Division, Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Mel Chengam Circle, Pachal Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
...
Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to defer all further proceedings in Charge Memo C.No.H1/P.R.76/2015 14.10.2015 till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.182 of 2015 pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge Tiruvanamalai.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran'
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kumar Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
Today, when this writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had sought the permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. However, he expressed his apprehension that when the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, parallely, the departmental enquiry is also proceeded with and in the event of any observation or any punishment imposed on the petitioner in the Departmental enquiry it will have a bearing on the trial in the Criminal case.
2.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia & Ors., reported in 2005 (7) SCC 764 has held that Acquittal by a criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. It was further held that the two proceedings viz., criminal and departmental are entirely different and they operate in different fields and have different objectives. Therefore, the apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
3.
In the above circumstances, recording the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 22.06.2016 arr To
1. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tiruvanamalai.
2. The Inquiry Officer, The Deputy Superindent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Sub-Division, Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Mel Chengam Circle, Pachal Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
B.RAJENDRAN, J arr Writ Petition No.20595 of 2016 22.06.2016