BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 9/3/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD) No.2740 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.1 of 2011 K. Baskaran ... Petitioner Vs. The Superintendent of Police Virudhunagar District ... Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent herein to complete the oral enquiry and submit his enquiry report in P.R.No.75 of 2009 dated 20/10/2009 within the time fixed by this Court. For petitioner ... Mr.R.Murugesan For respondent ... Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Spl.G.P. O R D E R Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying to direct the respondent herein to complete the oral enquiry and submit his enquiry report in P.R.No.75 of 2009 dated 20/10/2009 within a time fixed by this Court. 4. The case of the petitioner is that, he was recruited as a direct Sub-Inspector of Police on 2/11/1979. He was promoted as Inspector of Police on 1/10/1993 and then as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 5/2/2005. When his name was ripen for inclusion in the ensuing panel of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category 1, fit for promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police, Category – I for the year 2011 – 2012, a charge memo was issued to him under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by the Director General of Police, Chennai for the alleged lapses, while he was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukkottai in Virudhunagar District during the year 2005 – 2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, in his proceeding dated 30/4/2010 has appointed the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District as the Common Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and another Officer. 6. There are only two prosecution witnesses in the charge memo. The Enquiry Officer, who is none other than the respondent herein, has enquired only one witness and thereafter, another witness was not at all been enquired so far. There is no progress in conducting oral enquiry after 3/9/2010. Hence he made a representation to the respondent on 1/12/2010 to complete the enquiry and send the enquiry report and further orders. But, so far, the enquiry was not completed. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 7. Considering the limited scope of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the claim made by the petitioner, I direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1/12/2010 and take appropriate action on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.5726) W.P.(MD) No.2740 of 2011 09.03.2011 mvs NSV/25.3.11/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/