C.Muthukrishnan v. The Director General Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA AND WMP Nos. 22715 & 22717 of 2026 C.Muthukrishnan S/o. Chellam, Assistant Commandant (Under suspension) TSP XIII Battalion Tamil Nadu Disaster Rescue Force, Avadi, Chennai - 54.
..Petitioner Vs
1. The Director General of Police Armed Police, Kilpauk, Chennai -10.
2. The Inspector General of Police Armed Police, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
3. S.Brindha IPS Commandant, TSP Regimental Center Avadi, Chennai - 54.
..Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo issued in PR No.16/2025 dated 18.08.2025 and the consequential order passed by him in C.No.D1/4158/140/ 2025 dated 22.04.2026 for appointment of the 3rd respondent as Enquiry Officer, quash the same and grant such other further relief as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and pass orders.
For Petitioner:
Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents:
Mr.A.R.Balaji Government Advocate [R1 & R2]
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief : " To call for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo issued in PR No.16/2025 dated 18.08.2025 and the consequential order passed by him in C.No.D1/4158/140/ 2025 dated 22.04.2026 for appointment of the 3rd respondent as Enquiry Officer, quash the same and grant such other further relief."
2. The petitioner who had been working as Assistant Commandant in TSP XIII Battalion is now under suspension from 28.08.2025, on a false allegation that he had demanded and accepted bribe for sanctioning leave to his subordinates. The petitioner was issued with the charge memo dated 18.08.2025 under Rule 17(b) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules by the second respondent, containing as many as 12 charges. The charge memo contained three parts namely Annexure-1, Annexure-3 and Annexure-4. The Annexure-1 contains Charges and Statement of Allegations; Annexure-3 contains as many as 59 documents including the number of material objects and statement of witnesses; and Annexure-4 contains as many as 15 witnesses.
3. The petitioner would submit that the charge memo issued to him was in English, and since was not well versed in English language, he had submitted his representations on 21.08.2025, 18.03.2026, 29.04.2026 and finally on 12.05.2026 to the respondents 2 and 3, requesting to produce the copies of relevant documents in Tamil version, so as to enable him to submit his explanation, and that he had also sought time to submit his reply/explanation to the said charge memo. The respondents had furnished the translated version of charge memo only on 04.03.2026, however, they failed to furnish the documents and statement of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 of the charge memo. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent had issued the impugned order dated 22.04.
2026, in and by which, it had appointed the 3rd respondent as Enquiry Officer to conduct oral enquiry. The contention of the petitioner is that without furnishing the copies of the documents required by him and without submitting his explanation, the 2nd respondent appointing an Enquiry Officer, to conduct oral enquiry, is illegal, unreasonable and unsustainable in law. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the impugned orders.
4. Mr.A.R.Balaji, learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that this Court may set aside the proceedings dated 22.04.2026, in and
by which the Enquiry Officer has been appointed. He would submit that the main grievance of the petitioner to the charge memo is on account of the fact that he was not supplied with the documents listed in Annexure-III. The said documents would be supplied to the petitioner at the earliest.
5. Recording the above, this Court directs the 2nd respondent to produce the documents as sought by the petitioner preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be given four weeks time thereafter, for submitting his explanation, and upon receipt of his explanation, the 2nd respondent shall proceed to appoint the Enquiry Officer and hold an enquiry. In case, the petitioner requires the translation copies of the documents produced by the respondent, the same shall be done at his expense.
6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 09-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order DS
To:
1. The Director General of Police Armed Police, Kilpauk Chennai -10.
2. The Inspector General of Police Armed Police, Kilpauk Chennai - 10.
P.T.ASHA J.
DS and WMP Nos. 22715 & 22717 of 2026 09-06-2026