NAGARAJU Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the fourth writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order of suspension made against the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as a Police Constable in Vaangal Police Station coming under the Karur District. He was caught in a trap case and was arrested by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, Tiruchirappalli on 30.1.2009 for having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.750/- from a resident of Minnampalli village for returning his two wheeler vehicle. A corruption case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Crime No.1 of 2009. In view of this, the petitioner was placed under suspension in public interest.

(2.) The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.3279 of 2009 challenging the order of suspension. S.Manikumar, J. by his order, dated 18.4.2009 dismissed the writ petition on merits. The petitioner preferred a writ appeal being W.A.(MD)No.268 of 2009. A division bench of this court, by its order, dated 24.6.2009 held that since suspension was made on corruption charges and that too in a trap case, there was no case made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge and hence the writ appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner once again without any justification filed W.P.(MD)No.10171 of 2009 seeking for a direction to consider his representation, dated 5.8.2009 and to review the suspension order. By an order, dated 12.10.2009, R.S.Ramanathan, J. directed the respondents to consider initiating any departmental proceedings. The petitioner once again filed W.P.(MD)No.4316 of 2010 challenging the original order of suspension as well as the order refusing to review the said suspension. P.Jyothimani, J. by his order, dated 01.04.2010, once again directed the petitioner to make a representation and the respondents were directed to consider the said representation. Taking advantage of this observation, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 7.4.2010. The first respondent, pursuant to the direction, by his order, dated 19.4.2010 held that the petitioner's request was considered. A criminal case registered against him was still under investigation by the Vigilance police. Hence at this stage, it was not feasible to release him from suspension. Therefore, his request was rejected.

(3.) After filing case after case, the petitioner has now once again come forward to challenge the original order of suspension and the first order, dated 02.02.2010 refusing to review the order of suspension as well as the last order, dated 19.4.2010 where once again his request was rejected. The conduct of the petitioner is clearly an abuse of the process of the court. It is not enough to enclose all the orders obtained by him in the earlier proceedings. When an order of suspension was upheld by this court and an appeal against such an order was dismissed, there is no scope for the petitioner to keep on filing writ petitions and his conduct is a virtual raid on this court.