P. IRULAPPAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE COIMBATORE CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorari, seeking records relating to a Charge Memo issued in C.No.F1/PR.No.124/2023 dtd. 26/6/2023 by the respondent, Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore and to quash the same.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner, who was working as a Sub Inspector of Police and is now under suspension in the Coimbatore City Police, contended that a complaint was lodged by one Iyyappan, the petitioner had warned him not to engage in the business of selling wastage oil without a license and that a Head Constable T. Rajkumar had demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000.00 and a monthly "mamool" of Rs.1,000.00 to be paid to the Sub Inspector of Police, the petitioner herein, for the petitioner to allow him to continue his business. The petitioner who is actually called as Irulappan was termed as Santhosh in the complaint. It had been stated that consequent to the complaint lodged, FIR in Crime No.17/2021/AC/CB had been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, on 24/8/2021. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 27/8/2021 and subsequently, released on bail. But however, the petitioner had been placed under suspension and a Charge Memo was issued to him on 26/6/2023, which is now impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the Charge Memo, specifically highlighting the annexures attached to it. These annexures included a list of documents to be relied upon by the department during the course of the investigation, as well as a list of statements and witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the list of witnesses, the list of documents, and the nature of the charges are identical to the statements and allegations made in the FIR, on the basis of which, and following further investigation, charges would be framed by the Criminal Court. It had been contended that allowing both proceedings to continue simultaneously would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that if the disciplinary proceedings are permitted to proceed alongside the criminal proceedings, based on the same set of evidence both oral and documentary any findings in the disciplinary proceedings could influence the outcome of the criminal trial. Therefore, it was contended that the further proceedings in the Charge Memo should be kept in abeyance until the conclusion of the criminal trial.