KATHIRESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charge memo dated 14.03.2017 issued under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Police Constable on 30.11.2003 and thereafter, promoted as Grade-1 Police Constable. On account of a complaint, a criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner in Crime No. 38 of 2014 on the file of Inspector of Police, Coimbatore City Police Station, CBCID, Coimbatore District under Section 457,380 r/w 120(b),109,166,166A and 7(3)(1)(d)(1), iii r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and a charge sheet has already been laid and the trial is pending in Special C.C.No.1 of 2016, on the file of Special Judge for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore.

(3.) The grievances of the writ petitioner is that, when the criminal trial is pending, the Competent Authorities ought not to have issued a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that simultaneous proceedings are impermissible, in view of the fact that the facts, circumstances and the allegations both in the criminal case as well as in departmental disciplinary proceedings are one and the same. Relying on the ground that, allegations, documents and witness are one and the same both in the criminal and departmental disciplinary proceedings.