KRISHNAN Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition challenges the charge memo framed against the petitioner under 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. THE petitioner is working as a Head Constable in the Police department. It appears that in respect of his tenancy in D.No.11/6 Mahalakshmi street, there are some disputes between the petitioner's wife Mrs.K.Lakshmi and the landlord regarding rental amount and the landlord is insisting to vacate the petitioner's wife and the petitioner from the premises. In respect of the said dispute the petitioner's wife has filed a suit in O.S.No,444/2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Alandur for an injunction against the landlord from interfering with her possession. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is living with her wife in the same premises. But the dispute is purely civil in nature in respect of the petitioner and his wife occupying a portion as tenants. THE main charge framed against the petitioner shows that the petitioner is liable for disciplinary proceedings due to the reason that through his wife while occupying the residential house, he is refusing to vacate the house and failed to pay the rent for seven months to the landlord and through his wife he has also filed a suit in the Civil Court without permission from the Department and therefore it is in violation of Rule 111 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders and Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Police Conduct Rules.

(2.) THE Impugned charge memo is challenged on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and the petitioner being a police Head constable cannot be expected to get permission from the department when his wife is a tenant in respect of a portion relating to which, the dispute arose with the landlord and therefore the question of permission from Higher Authorities does not arise.

(3.) AGAIN rule 24 of Tamil Nadu Police Conduct Rules, which is as follows, Rule 24.Integrity and devotion to duty: