HC quashes charge memo against SP; faults govt on timing

The Madras High Court has quashed a charge memo issued to a Superintendent of Police who launched a lathicharge against an AIADMK MLA and other party workers in December 2008 during the bye-election to Tirumangalam assembly constituency.
Finding fault on the part the state government on the timing of the charge memo issued to M Manohar in September 2013 when his name was in the list for conferment of IPS, Justice M Sathyanarayanan held that the initiation of disciplinary proceedingsper seis malafide.
"Even otherwise, it cannot withstand the legal scrutiny in the light of the vagueness of the charges coupled with long delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings," he ruled.

He was allowing a petition by Manohar seeking to quash the September 28, 2013 charge memo issued by the Home Secretary on an incident which had occurred in December 2008.
In the light of the petitioner's selection to Indian Police Service (appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955, timing of the charge memo assumes importance, the Judge said.
The petitioner, who was the Superintendent of Police then, had led a strike force to quell a violent crowd led by AIADMK MLA R Samy which attacked police personnel following a quarrel over the election.

Police had registered a case and arrested several party cadres.

Samy, one of the accused in the criminal case, lodged a complaint against Manohar on August 8, 2013, five years after the incident when the officer's name was empanelled for IPS, alleging that the SP had behaved aggressively, manhandled him and attacked the party cadres.
The Judge noted that the subsequent inquiry report did not state anything with regard to alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner.
The court also faulted the state government for its decision to withdraw the criminal case against the MLA even while initiating disciplinary action against the officer.
The Judge also pulled up the the Judicial Magistrate who allowed withdrawal of the case, saying "unfortunately the magistrate had failed to apply his mind to the relevant legal provisions as well as to the contents of the application filed by the prosecution for withdrawal.