A.Kannadasan v. The Special Commissioner And Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN AND WMP NO. 23142 OF 2025 A.Kannadasan S/o. Arumugam, No.AE-1, Police Quarters, Kadampadi, Nagapattinam-611 001.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3.The Inspector General of Police (Crime), Old Commissioner's Office Campus, 1/7
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
4.The Inspector General of Police (Administration), Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
5.The Superintendent of Police Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam 611 001.
Respondent(s) PRAYER: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Memo of Charges issued in Ka.No.A3/0839/2025, Tha. Pa.No.03/2025 Section 3(b) dated 25.02.2025 by the Inspector General of Police (Crime) Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004 the 3rd Respondent herein and to quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
M/s.S.S.Jhothivani For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Sasikumar, Government Advocate For R1 To R5
ORDER
Challenging the memo of charges dated 25.02.2025 issued by the third respondent/Inspector General of Police (Crime), the petitioner had filed the 2/7
present Writ Petition.
2. Mr.R.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the time of admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently submit that at the verge of promotion, the impugned charge memorandum dated 25.02.2025 was issued in respect of alleged delinquencies which was happened in the year 2016. It is the further specific submission of the petitioner, that the impugned charge memorandum has been given in a biased manner only to deny the petitioner's legitimate promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in the Anti-Video Piracy Cell, Tiruchirappalli, he had served only for a period of 20 days, and therefore, he submitted that the charge is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, Mr.R.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing 3/7
for the respondents 1 to 5, strongly opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and submitted that it is too premature to interfere with the charge memorandum, and the charge would be proved only by letting in evidence through examining the witnesses. Therefore, he submitted that under the judicial review, at this stage, this Court could not interfere with the charge memorandum.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is the specific concern of the petitioner's counsel that, only to deny his due promotion, the charge memorandum was issued with a delay of more than 9 years. However, looking at the charge memorandum, it is seen that it contains certain derelictions of duty of the petitioner and the respondents also relied as many as 16 witnesses and 17 documents. In the considered opinion of this Court, unless these documents are marked and witnesses are examined, it is too premature for this Court to go into the factual aspects of the charge 4/7
memorandum. However, the concern of the petitioner could be addressed by directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time.
7. In such view of the matter, though this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition, would like to issue a direction to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 12-06-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes jd Note: Issue order copy on 13.06.2025.
5/7
To
1. The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3.The Inspector General of Police (Crime), Old Commissioner's Office Campus, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 4.The Inspector General of Police (Administration), Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
5.The Superintendent of Police Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam 611 001.
6/7
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
jd 12-06-2025 7/7