A K VISWANATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is sought for in this Writ Petition is a mandamus, forbearing respondents 4 and 5 from conducting any enquiry against the petitioner based upon the decision said to have been taken on 28.08.2009 by respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment as an IPS Officer and was allotted to Tamil Nadu Cadre; he is holding the position of Inspector General of Police; during February,2009, he was working as Additional Commissioner of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai City; on the orders of Mr. Radhakrishnan, the then Commissioner of Police, he came to High Court on the forenoon of 19.02.2009 to oversee the security arrangements in the High Court apropos the appearance of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy before the High Court; at about 14.45 hrs., the then Commissioner of Police called him over phone and directed him to go to B2 Esplanade Police Station and monitor the surrender of advocates connected in Crime No. 13/09 on the file of B4 High Court Police Station; he has nothing to do with the planning and execution of the situation arising out of the said crime; there was firing of tear gas shells and lathi charge; the Hon'ble High Court initiated Suo Motu W.P. No. 3335/2009 apropos the incidents in the Court campus on 19.02.2009; on the direction of High Court to submit the names of the officers who ordered the entry of police into the High Court campus and ordered lathi charge, Mr. Radhakrishnan filed a false and malicious report dated 18.03.2009, stating that the officers at the spot including him (the petitioner) took a collective decision to disperse the mob using force; it is totally a false report; on the basis of the said report, this High Court, by an order dated 18.03.2009, ordered his suspension from service; thereafter, he filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7540 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of this High Court ordering his suspension was not given effect to; Mr. Radhakrishnan, the then Commissioner of Police alone was responsible for the incidents in the High Court campus and there were attempts to persuade him not to contradict the report of Mr. Radhakrishnan.

(3.) While so, on 28.08.2009, a committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and the Vigilance Commissioner had ordered a vigilance enquiry against him, which he came to know only through newspapers; he has not been given a copy of the order; the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, met him and served a questionnaire, for which, he gave a reply to fifth respondent on 09.12.2009; on 18.01.2010, he received a letter from fifth respondent stating that Executive Engineer, PWD, Chennai, would evaluate his house and he asked for a copy of the report of the PWD Engineer, who evaluated his house, which is not furnished to him.