M DURAIRAJ Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners W.P. No. 15175 and 15176 of 2008, Grade I Police Constable and Sub Inspector of Police, have challenged the charge memos, dated 10.3.2008 issued separately to them, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Chennai City Police, Chennai, the second respondent and the summons dated 4.6.2008, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Armed Reserve, Chennai City Police, Chennai, enquiry officer, third respondent.

(2.) As pleadings and submissions are common, the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.

(3.) Short facts deduced from the affidavits filed in support of both the Writ Petitions are as follows: When the petitioners were working In Chittalapakkam Police Station, pursuant to pg registration of a Criminal case in crime No. 767 of 2002, under Sections 147, 363, 342, 384, 506(1), 420 and 120 (B) of IPC, against them on the file of St.Thomas Mount Police Station, they were placed under suspension on by the Superintendent of Police, Chengal East District, vide orders, dated 25.12.2002 and 24.12 2002 respectively. According to the petitioners, they were under prolonged suspension. Though a Criminal case was registered for various offences, the prosecution has laid charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 365 and 385 IPC only, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Poonamallee. The charge sheet has been filed in the year 2002. During the course of examination In chief of P.W.1, the prosecution faced difficulty In marking documents, said to have been recovered from Accused No. 1, as they were not available either In the Court or with the respondent police and therefore, the deposition of P. W.1 was stopped. The prosecution did not take proper steps to bring PW1 and mark the cheques before the Criminal Court. Though the criminal case was registered in the year 2002, the trial has began only after four years and It was protracted at the instance of the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file Criminal O.P. No. 24435 of 2007, before this Court for a direction to the respondents-police to complete the trial at the earliest. When the criminal case was pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, second respondent, issued charge memos, dated 10.3.2008, containing the same set of allegations in the above Criminal case and the witnesses were almost the same. The charge memos were issued after a lapse of six years from the date of the alleged occurrence. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioners before the Criminal Court and the statement of facts in respect of charges framed by the second respondent are one and the same, the petitioners have made representations to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Chennai-South, first respondent to withhold the departmental proceedings, till the completion of the criminal case. But, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Chennai City Police, Chennai, first re-spondent has appointed the second respondent as the enquiry officer. The third respondent, by his impugned-letter, dated 4.6.2008 has called upon the petitioners to appear for an enquiry.