P APPAVOO Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Personal Assistant to the Superintendent of Police, Salem District from 10.6.2005. He was also the Personal Assistant (Administration) from 7.6.2006. One of his duty was to attest the copies of certificate of candidates, who seek for an employment in the police department and the Government offices. THE petitioner was also empowered to verify the original certificates of candidates, who seek employment. While the petitioner was working in the office of the Superintendent of Police, a criminal case was registered in FIR No.6 of 2008, dated 16.4.2008 by the District Crime Branch, Salem under Sections 120(B), 464, 465, 468, 471, 477(A), 448, 420 IPC read with 120(B) IPC.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that his name did not find place in the FIR. One of the accused A-1, Senthamaraikannan, who was a Junior Assistant in the District Police, Salem gave confession statement. In his confession, he had stated that he had paid Rs.95000/- to the petitioner for the purpose of attesting the certificates of various persons. During investigation, the petitioner was also arraigned as A-15 in that case. While it is so, the petitioner was placed under suspension by G.O.(2D)No.315, Home (Police) Department, dated 29.5.2008. Subsequently, as he was reaching the age of superannuation on 31.5.2008, he was not permitted to retire from service. By an order in G.O.(2D)No.316, Home (Police) Department, dated 30.5.2008, he was retained in service by exercise of power under FR 56(1)(c). In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved a bail application before this court in Crl.O.P.No.20442 of 2008. During the course of proceedings, it was informed that the first accused had promised job for 25 persons and collected Rs.37,05,630/-. Since no job was secured and money was not returned, a case was registered. THE petitioner was arraigned as A-15. Colluding with the first accused, the petitioner had also material gains. He was arrested on 7.8.2008. THE Court had taken note of all these circumstances. By an order, dated 19.8.2008, the Court had granted bail to the petitioner.

(3.) THIS court is not inclined to agree with the said submissions. The question of keeping the disciplinary action in abeyance pending criminal trial will arise only when it is based upon the same set of facts and not in every case, pending criminal trial, the disciplinary proceedings should be stalled. On the contrary, the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank v. P. Ganesan reported in (2008) 1 SCC 650 in paragraphs 23 and 24 held as follows: