9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed Writ Petition No. 38696 of 2016 assailing the judgment of the Tribunal regarding the direction to reinstate the first Respondent by revoking his suspension. The High Court by its judgment dated 12.01.2017 upheld the judgment of the Tribunal revoking the suspension of the first Respondent. The High Court further quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Appellant against the first Respondent by declaring the charge memo dated 29.10.2013 as non est in law. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the Appellant has approached this Court by fling the above appeal. 2. The first Respondent is a member of the Indian Police Service and was allotted to the State of Tamil Nadu. He was posted as Inspector General of Police, West Zone, Coimbatore from 10.09.2008 to 19.02.2010. During his tenure in the said post, an FIR was registered against K. Mohanraj, K. Kathiravan and Kamalavalli Arumugam who were the Directors of M/s. Paazee Forex Trading India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "M/s. Paazee Forex") by the Central Crime Branch, Tirupur Under Section 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 420 of the India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was arrested on 02.05.2012. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu by an order dated 10.05.2012 placed the first Respondent under suspension with effect from 02.04.2012 in terms of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 3 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 until further orders. It was mentioned in the said order that the first Respondent was arrested on 02.05.2012 and was detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. It is relevant to note that the first Respondent was released on bail on 28.06.2012. 7. Writ Petition No. 21801 of 2012 was filed by the first Respondent in the High Court of Madras praying for a direction "forbearing the Respondents (CBI and Ors. from proceeding further with conducting enquiry or investigating offences alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner (first Respondent) in connection with the case registered in FIR in RC No. 13(E)/2011/CBI/EOW/Chennai and pending on the file of the 5th Respondent (CBI)". The Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras by a judgment dated 05.12.2012 which was upheld by a Division Bench on 29.04.2013. In the meanwhile, the decision to initiate a disciplin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 by observing that the CBI cannot proceed with the investigation in view of the order passed by this Court on 17.03.2015. Thereafter, the Special Court, CBI by an order dated 19.10.2015 ordered as follows: In the result in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3062/15 and by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Crl. R.C. No. 838/14 subject to the orders to be passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. 21801/12 and Crl. O.P. 2691 and 5356/11 for the present this case in CC 2/13 is closed. 10. The first Respondent filed O.A. 165 of 2016 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench for quashing of the order of suspension dated 10.05.2013 and the charge memo dated 29.10.2013. He also sought for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. It is relevant to mention that the order of suspension dated 10.05.2012 was periodically extended after expiry of 180 days and the last extension was on 06.07.2016. 11. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench refused to interfere with the charge memo by holding that the first Respondent had not exhausted his remedies by fling his objections or statement of defence. Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351 was not correctly decided. According to him, approval of the disciplinary authority at the initial stage and the stage of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings is sufficient and there is no need for an approval of the charge memo by the disciplinary authority as held in the above judgment. He also placed before us the Tamil Nadu Government Business Rules, 1978 in support of his submissions. 13. On behalf of Respondent No. 1, Mr. P. Chidambaram submitted that there is no need for the continuation of suspension of Respondent No. 1, especially, when no material was brought to the notice of the Court about any attempt made by him to tamper with the evidence. He submitted that mere apprehension of Respondent No. 1 influencing the witnesses, in case he is reinstated, is not a sufficient ground to deprive him the relief of reinstatement. He also submitted that the criminal case against him is dormant at present in view of the order passed by the Special Court closing the criminal case subject to further directions of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 21801 of 2012 after hearing the first Respondent. He pointed out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be dealt with by the Chief Minister as per Standing Order No. 2 dated 09.01.1992 issued by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Under Rule 35(4) of the Business Rules which reads as follows Paragraph 18. Disciplinary Action: Files relating to disciplinary action against I.A.S./I.P.S./I.F.S. Officers in the senior-grade and above at the stage of issue of charge memo/show cause notice to the above officers alone should be circulated to the Chief Minister. In the case of Secretaries to Government where action is contemplated Under Rule 17(a) or 17(b) of the Tamil Naidu Civil Services (CC & A) Rules such files should be circulated to the Chief Minister. In the case of Heads of Department files where action is contemplated Under Rule 17(b) of the T.N.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, alone should be circulated to the Chief Minister. In the case of District Revenue Officers, the files should be circulated to the Chief Minister only at the stage of imposition of penalty after obtaining the explanation of the officers. In the case of Joint Secretary Deputy Secretary where action is contemplated Under Rule 17(b) of the T.N.C.S. (CC & A) Rules such cases should be circulated by the Chief Secreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge memo. It was held that if any authority other than the disciplinary authority is permitted to draw the charge memo, the same would result in destroying the underlying protection guaranteed Under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 18. Rule 8(4) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 also mandates that the disciplinary authority shall "draw up or cause to be drawn up" the charge memo. We see no reason to take a view different from the one taken by this Court in B.V. Gopinath (supra). We also see no substance in the submission made by the Senior Counsel for the State that the said judgment needs reconsideration. Assuming that Mr. Giri is right in his submission that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo are at the same stage, the mandatory requirement of Rule 8 which provides for the charge memo to be drawn by the disciplinary authority cannot be ignored. We reject the submission on behalf of the Appellant that Gopinath's case can be distinguished on facts. We are not in agreement with the contention of the Appellant that the business Rules and standing orders of the State of Tamil Nadu are quite different from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
