← Library
Madras High CourtWP/19106/2026partly allowed

T.Raja Singh, v. Assistant Commissioner Of Police,

2026-06-10Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. Asha4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA and WMP No.20368 of 2026 T.Raja Singh, S/o. A.Thomas, Special Sub Inspector of Police, D1, Triplicane Police Station, Chennai City.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Triplicane Sub Division, Chennai -600 002.

2. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungambakkam Sub Division, Chennai -600034.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent herein in his proceedings Tha.Ko.No.1H/Tha.Pi.(Ki.Ma)/2025 dated 24/02/2025 and quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of the Statutory Rules. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Kishore Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.K.Sathish, Government Advocate

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for the relief set out below: "to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order

passed by the 1st Respondent herein in his proceedings Tha.Ko.No.1H/Tha.Pi.(Ki.Ma)/2025 dated 24/02/2025 and quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of the Statutory Rules."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the service as Grade II Police Constable on 15.04.1997 and subsequently promoted as Head Constable and Special Sub Inspector of Police. While so, the petitioner was arrested and placed under suspension for a criminal case. Later, the suspension order was revoked and he was reinstated into service in the same station. Meanwhile, the petitioner was issued with the charge memos framed by two different authorities and different enquiries are ordered for the very same charge. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of the statutory rules and also runs contrary to the Rule 4A of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 was not issued by the competent authority and therefore, it is in clear violation of the Rule 4A of Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

5. The only legal ground on which the said impugned order issued to the petitioner is that it runs contrary to the Rule 4A of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules. According to the petitioner, since his codelinquent is his higher officer and his charge memo has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020, the petitioner should also have been issued with the charge memo by the same officer. 6.

Considering the above fact, the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 is quashed. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020, to issue a charge memo to the petitioner in this regard within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

10-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order ssa

P.T.ASHA, J.

ssa To 1.Assistant Commissioner of Police, Triplicane Sub Division, Chennai -600 002.

2.Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungambakkam Sub Division, Chennai -600034.

10-06-2026