Kaleeswari v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and C.M.P.(MD)No.9112 of 2023 Kaleeswari ... Appellant/Petitioner -vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi Range, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of Police, M.Pudupatti Police Station, M.Pudupatti, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
4.Anbalagan ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 12.04.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.6790 of 2022 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader
J U D G M E N T
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.04.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.6790 of 2022. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition, the appellant prayed for a Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider her representation, dated 30.03.2022 to take departmental proceedings against the fourth respondent in connection to the non-compliance of the conditional order by the accused in FIR in Crime No.3 of 2021, dated 03.01.2021 on the file of the M.Pudupatti Police Station.
2. It is the case of the appellant that she is the defacto complainant in Crime No.3 of 2021 on the file of the M.Pudupatti Police Station. The fourth respondent is functioning as Special Sub-Inspector of Police in the said police station. When anticipatory bail was granted in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.209 of 2021 in respect of the four accused in the said case, the same was granted on condition to appear before the police station and sign daily at 10.30 a.m. None of the accused properly complied with the said condition and when the fourth accused had signed the attendance register of the school, which starts at 09.00 a.m, he could not have complied with the condition at 10.30 a.m. Therefore, it is her contention that the fourth respondent has colluded with them in creating false records.
3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the nature of representation, found that when already application for cancellation of bail has been moved before the concerned Court, it is for the said Court to take a call. Making representations and thereafter, filing writ petitions for initiating disciplinary proceedings is a misconceived practice and therefore, dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
4. Mr.P.M.Vishnuvardhanan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that all that he prayed was to consider her representation, whereby, she has brought to the notice of the respondents 1 and 2 about the illegality committed by the fourth respondent. In any event, the said writ petition ought not to have been dismissed with cost. The petitioner being the defacto complainant in the criminal case, is entitled to make such representation and its the statutory duty of the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the same.
5. We have considered the said submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material records of the case.
6. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, a writ petition in the nature of a mandamus to initiate disciplinary proceedings is misconceived. The remedy for any wrongful documentation in respect of compliance of conditions imposed while granting bail is to bring it to the notice of the appropriate Court by way of an appropriate application for
cancellation of bail which has already been done. As far as the disciplinary proceedings is concerned, is not a right of the persons, who make the complaint but it is the prerogative of the employer. Therefore, just because the petitioner has made a representation bringing to the notice of the respondents 1 and 2 some facts, she does not have any concomitant right to demand that that the disciplinary action should be taken nor the respondents 1 and 2 have any statutory duty to oblige to the petitioner's demand. In this case even the allegation made of non-compliance have not even be proved before the appropriate bail Court in the cancellation of bail application. In any event, the initiation of departmental enquiry is within the employer's domain. Therefore, no other person can has no locus standi to demand the same.
Any demand in respect thereof would only be a Public Interest Litigation which is not maintainable in service matters. Therefore, taking note of such misconceived writ petition being repeatedly filed, the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition with costs. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, but however, in the facts and circumstances, we only reduce the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge to Rs.5,000/-.
7. In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.] 28.07.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sji To:
1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi Range, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of Police, M.Pudupatti Police Station, M.Pudupatti, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
S.S.SUNDAR , J.
and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.
sji and C.M.P.(MD)No.9112 of 2023 28.07.2023