M.MANOHAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.3990 of 2014 has been filed challenging the legality of the charge memo dated 28.09.2013, issued to the petitioner herein by the first respondent. W.P.No.3510 of 2015 has been filed challenging the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, vide G.O.Ms.No.901, Home (SC) Department dated 03.12.2014 passed by the first respondent. Since the facts are interwined, all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions, briefly narrated, are as follows:

(3.) Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions would submit that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in initiation of departmental proceedings as the incident relating to the case in Crime No.155/2008 happened on 29.12.2008 and the case after investigation, culminated into a charge sheet, which was taken on file in P.R.C.No.30 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam and nearly after 5 years, based on the representation given by one of the accused, namely, Thiru R.Samy, MLA of Melur constituency dated 28.09.2013, signed on 10.10.2013, preliminary enquiry was conducted based on which, charge memo came to be issued when the petitioner ranked as Sl.No.2 for the selection for appointment to Indian Police Service, subject to clearance of disciplinary proceedings. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even for the sake of arguments, the preliminary enquiry report submitted by Thiru V.Balakrishnan I.P.S., then Superintendent of Police, Madurai District is unacceptable, still no case has been made out for launching departmental action and though allegations were levelled against the petitioner and other officials such as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police and others, they have not been proceeded departmentally and only the petitioner has been singled out, that too when he has been selected to join in Indian Police Service in the select list for the year 2013. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that unfortunately the second respondent who ordered preliminary enquiry, became the Inquiry Officer and the timing of the disciplinary proceedings would indicate that the sole intention/attempt is to prevent the petitioner from entering into Indian Police Service in the select list for the year 2013 and that too nearly after 5 years from the date of the alleged occurrence.