A PRABHU Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first and the second respondents.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that a Charge Memo, dated 18.08.2005,had been issued by the first respondent, against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had moved out of Jolarpet, which was the head quarters, during the period of his temporary suspension from service.

(3.) IN view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and on perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner is not in a position to prove that the Charge Memo dated 18.08.2005, issued against the petitioner, is directly connected to the criminal case pending on the file of the Special Court, Coimbatore. The reason for the first respondent to issue the Charge Memo, dated, 18.05.2005, is that the petitioner had left the head quarters, during the period of his temporary suspension, without obtaining the prior permission from the authorities concerned. IN such circumstances, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.