The Madras High Court has quashed a charge memo issued to the then Madurai Superintendent of Police six years after he allegedly abused an AIADMK MLA and his followers during Tirumangalam by-election in Madurai in 2008.
During the campaigning on December 29, 2008, AIADMK leaders O. Panneerselvam, K.A. Sengottaiyan, ‘Pollachi’ Jayaraman and then Melur MLA R. Samy, who were accompanied by party cadres, allegedly abused some police personnel. Later the mob turned violent and pelted stones and the police and allegedly attacked the uniformed personnel. A Sub-Inspector, Sathyaprabha, was alleged chased and police vehicles were damaged in the incident.
The police arrested many party functionaries.
Meanwhile, Mr. Samy lodged a private complaint against the then Madurai Superintendent of Police Manohar accusing him of manhandling and attacking party cadres, causing injuries to some. It was alleged that the detained party cadres were starved of food till next morning.
Five years later, when the officer was empanelled along with six others for becoming IPS officers, the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, issued a charge memo against Mr. Manohar in July 2013 on the basis of Mr. Samy’s old complaint. Assailing the memo, the officer moved the High Court alleging that the proceeding was mala fide and timed to deny him IPS status due to political influence.
When the plea came up for hearing, Justice M. Sathyanarayanan pointed out that the State government had withdrawn the criminal prosecution against the AIADMK leaders and cadres who created serious law and order problem.
“But it has chosen to continue with the departmental proceedings initiated against the officer,” Justice Sathyanarayanan said.
The judge said, “R. Samy, one of the accused in the criminal case, had waited for nearly five years and on the verge of Manohar becoming a member of the IPS, thought it fit to lodge a complaint against him on August 8, 2013 which was promptly taken cognizance by the IG, South Zone.” Stating that on an overall consideration and appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances, the court was of the considered view that the initiation of disciplinary proceeding per se was mala fide and even otherwise, it could not withstand the legal scrutiny in the light of the vagueness of the charges coupled with long delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, quashed the memo.
