Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4-B. By adverting to the observation of the Apex Court in P.Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (1971 AIR 520 = 1970 SCR (3) 931) and that of this Court in 2010 (4) CTC 762 (A.K.Viswanathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu) to the effect that if a complaint is received against any high ranking public servant with acts of dishonesty, etc., before lodging a first information against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer, learned Government Pleader submits that on the basis of the above ratio laid down by the Courts, the Government, on receipt of the written complaint from the petitioner, thought it fit to hold a discreet preliminary enquiry by appointing the Inspector General of Police of the Intelligence Wing, who after collecting information relating to the allegations made in the written complaint of the petitioner and enquiring into the authenticity thereof, ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioner, who was arrested by the CBCID while he was serving in DVAC, Chennai, in connection with a Phone Tapping Case, during the pendency of trial of the case, approached this Court by filing a writ petition with a view to delay the departmental proceedings initiated against him and the 4th respondent herein, who is holding the post of Joint Director of the very same Directorate, in his official capacity, took all earnest steps to prove the ill intention of the petitioner behind filing the writ petition, as a result of which, the writ petition was dismissed and ultimately, steps were taken to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner; and only in such circumstances, enraged by the persistent efforts of the said Officer in pursuing the proceedings against him, the petitioner made the baseless complaint against the Officer, who is known for his unblemished service and high integrity. Inasmuch as the complaint is the clear handwork of a person, who is ill-motivated and rancorous against the Officer for his honest efforts in pursuing the proceedings connected to the phone tapping scandal which in a way had its impact on the reputation of the Directorate, this Court may straight away turn down the plea of the petitioner.

In the course of the discreet enquiry, the IG Intelligence categorically found thus:-

 It is learnt that Tr.A.Shankar (petitioner) while he was working in V&AC, Chennai, was arrested by CB CID in connection with the Phone Tapping case and the case is P.T. Meanwhile, he had approached the Madras High Court to delay the departmental proceedings against him and also to drag on the case. It is learnt that the Joint Director, V&AC, Chennai in his official capacity pursued the same and got the petition dismissed and proceeded with the enquiry in the phone tapping case. It is learnt that in order to thwart the attempt of the Joint Director V&AC in taking action against him (petitioner) he had sent the petition in question. By way of summary, the IG Intelligence ultimately concluded as follows:-
" The allegations levelled against Tr.Sunil Kumar, IPS,JD, V&AC, Chennai are totally false, motivated and baseless. The petition might have been sent to tarnish the image of the senior police officer, who is known for his unblemished service and high integrity.
The discreet enquiry report, dated 16.12.2010, of the IG Intelligence was sent to the Government on 21.12.2010, by the DGP vide letter C.No.319/S&C1/2010.

9. Therefore, the records make it clear that at the instance of the Government, as provided in the Manual as well the directives of the Courts, a discreet preliminary enquiry was conducted by a responsible top-level police officer viz., IG of Intelligence, who not only recorded his findings in respect of the properties owned by the Official but also the background in which the complaint came to be lodged against the Official by the petitioner, who was to a great extent aggrieved by the acts of the official in pursuing the departmental and court proceedings against him in respect of the Phone Tapping Case. Under such circumstances, one may not find justification in the claim of the petitioner for apprising him with reference to the immediate action taken in the matter, for, what was ordered was a discreet enquiry at an initial stage and the details of such enquiry will not be made public in terms of clause-18 of the Manual at Part-IV with the heading Preliminary Enquiry. The said clause prescribes that usually, the first enquiry into a complaint or information is in the nature of a preliminary enquiry which should be conducted with the utmost secrecy and witnesses should normally be contacted only through source or otherwise, indirectly.