SP challenges CAT order: Madras High Court notice to home secy
An enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry, submitted his report holding that charges 1 to 6 and 8 are proved and charge 7 was not proved.
Chennai: Superintendent of Police G.Sampathkumar, whose suspension was revoked on March 1 by the state government, has approached the Madras high court, challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, upholding the charge memo issued by state home secretary allegedly pursuant to his deposition before the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee with reference to IPL betting and match fixing case.
A division bench comprising Justices Huluvadi G. Ramesh and RMT Teeka Raman before whom the petition filed by Samthkumar came up for hearing, ordered notice, returnable by two weeks, to the home secretary.
According to petitioner, as he has deposed before Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee with reference to the allegations of betting and spot-fixing in IPL matches, it has earned displeasures from some quarters and at their influence, he was placed under suspension under the contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.
Subsequently, after a lapse of considerable time, he was issued with a charge memo containing charges on 8 counts framed under Rule 8 of All India Services Rules in which 6 charges for interacting with the media and the 7th one for allegedly collecting money through one Mahendra Singh Ranka and the 8th charge for not informing a transaction in a bank, he added.
He said the charge memo was issued with a malafide intention and an ulterior motive for the reason that he deposed before Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee regarding the details of the investigation carried out by him along with suggestions for the course of the investigation.
Subsequently, an enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry, submitted his report holding that charges 1 to 6 and 8 are proved and charge 7 was not proved.
Though the enquiry was proceeded with as per the orders passed by CAT, notwithstanding the fact that he has participated in the enquiry proceedings, he was entitled to challenge the order passed by CAT in as much as the charge memo suffers lack of jurisdiction as it was not approved by the disciplinary authority. Even in respect of the impugned charge memo, no approval has been obtained from the disciplinary authority viz Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, he added.