Aggrieved by the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal to reinstate the first Respondent, the Appellant, State of Tamil Nadu, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
Hence, this appeal by the State of Tamil Nadu.
13 E /2011/CBI EOW Chennai and pending on the file of the 5th Respondent CBI .
The judgment dated 29.04.2013 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.12 of 2013 pertaining to the investigation by the CBI against the involvement of Respondent No.1 in Crime No.3068 of 2009 was assailed by the first Respondent in this Court.
Pursuant thereto, a charge memo was issued to the first Respondent on 29.10.2013.
This Court by an order dated 17.03.2015 disposed of the SLPs with the following observations Without getting into the intricacies of the merits of the issues canvassed, we companysider it just and appropriate, to remand the matter back to the High Court, requiring the High Court to adjudicate upon Writ Petition No.21801 of 2012 afresh, by impleading the appellant s in Criminal Original Petition Nos.2691 and 5356 of 2011, and by affording an opportunity to the appellant before this Court.
She stated in the companyplaint that three police officials and a private individual extorted Rs.
The judgment of the Tribunal to the extent that charge memo was number quashed was assailed by the first Respondent in another Writ Petition.
P.C. for a direction to transfer the investigation to the CBI.
The Tribunal refused to set aside the charge memo.
By a judgment dated 12.01.2017, the High Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal pertaining to revocation of suspension.
The first Respondent is a member of the Indian Police Service and was allotted to the State of Tamil Nadu.
Therefore, the Tribunal held that a public servant cannot be companytinued under suspension for a prolonged period.
Thereafter, the Special Court, CBI by an order dated 19.10.2015 ordered as follows In the result in view of the orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3062/15 and by the Honble Madras High Court in Crl.
It is relevant to numbere that the first Respondent was released on bail on 28.06.2012.
Crime No.3068 of 2009 pertaining to the kidnapping of Kamalavalli Arumugam was also transferred to the CB CID, Vellore.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the Appellant has approached this Court by filing the above appeal.
Further, the High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the charge memo was number approved by the disciplinary authority.
On investigation, it was found that Respondent No.1 abused his official position as Inspector General of Police and inter alia, was involved in extorting money from the Directors of M s Paazee Forex and the delay in the repayment of money to the depositors of M s Paazee Forex.
A Petition filed by one of the accused for the return of certain seized documents was dismissed by a Special Judge, CBI on 15.07.2014.
He was posted as Inspector General of Police, West Zone, Coimbatore from 10.09.2008 to 19.02.2010.
During his tenure in the said post, an FIR was registered against Mohanraj, K. Kathiravan and Kamalavalli Arumugam who were the Directors of M s Paazee Forex Trading India Private Limited hereinafter referred to as M s Paazee Forex by the Central Crime Branch, Tirupur under Section 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC .
The High Court by its judgment dated 12.01.2017 upheld the judgment of the Tribunal revoking the suspension of the first Respondent.
The Appellant State of Tamil Nadu filed Writ Petition No.38696 of 2016 assailing the judgment of the Tribunal regarding the direction to reinstate the first Respondent by revoking his suspension.
He was arraigned as an accused in Crime No.
The investigation of Crime No.26 of 2009 registered against M s Paazee Forex on 24.09.2009 was transferred to the CB CID, Vellore on 23.03.2010.
In the meanwhile, the decision to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the first Respondent was approved by the Disciplinary Authority on 05.04.2013.
The Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras by a judgment dated 05.12.2012 which was upheld by a Division Bench on 29.04.2013.
R.C. No.838/14 subject to the orders to be passed by the Honble Madras High Court in W.P. 21801/12 and Crl.
Crime No.3068 of 2009 was registered under Section 365 IPC on 09.12.2009 pursuant to a written companyplaint that one of the Directors of M s Paazee Forex, Ms. Kamalavalli Arumugam, was missing since 08.12.2009.
Writ Petition No.21801 of 2012 was filed by the first Respondent in the High Court of Madras praying for a direction forbearing the Respondents CBI and others from proceeding further with companyducting enquiry or investigating offences alleged to have been companymitted by the Petitioner first Respondent in companynection with the case registered in FIR in RC No.
However, the Tribunal directed revocation of suspension by holding that there was numbermaterial to indicate that first Respondent had tampered with the evidence or influenced the witnesses.
The judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 19.04.2011 in Criminal O.P. No.2691 of 2011 and Criminal P. No.
A Revision Petition was filed by one Pratap Singh Nagar to set aside the order of the Special Judge, CBI, Coimbatore and to direct return of the documents.
O.P.2691 and 5356/11 for the present this case in CC 2/13 is closed.
Mr.K. Loganathan, an investor in M s Paazee Forex filed Criminal P. No.2691 of 2011 seeking transfer of investigation of Crime No.26 of 2009 from the State police to the CBI since he apprehended that the State police was protecting the Directors of M s Paazee Forex and delaying the disbursal of money payable to the depositors.
The High Court further quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Appellant against the first Respondent by declaring the charge memo dated 29.10.2013 as number est in law.
Since, the appellant herein was number heard when the order dated 19.4.2011 was passed by the High Court while disposing of Criminal Original Petition Nos.2691 and 5356 of 2011, we companysider it just and appropriate to further clarify, that the above order dated 19.4.2011, will number stand in the way of the appellant herein, when the High Court disposes of the matter afresh.
In the meanwhile, the first Respondent was interrogated in companynection with Crime No.3068 of 2009 on 06.04.2011.
5356 of 2011 by which Crime No.26 of 2009 and Crime No.3068 of 2009 were transferred to the CBI was challenged in this Court.
The first Respondent filed O.A. 165 of 2016 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench for quashing of the order of suspension dated 10.05.2013 and the charge memo dated 29.10.2013.
26 of 2009 by the Special Judge, CBI, Coimbatore on 28.02.2012.
M s Paazee Forex was alleged to have cheated a large number of depositors to the tune of Rs.1,210 crores.
The Directors of the companypany were granted anticipatory bail on 08.10.2009.
An association of investors of M s Paazee Forex filed Criminal O.P. No.5356 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.
By an order dated 19.04.2011, the High Court directed the transfer of Crime No.3 of 2010 originally Crime No.26 of 2009 registered against M s Paazee Forex and Crime No.3068 of 2009 originating from the kidnapping of Kamalavalli Arumugam to the CBI.
3 Crores approximately for her release.
The missing Director Kamalavalli Arumugam submitted a companyplaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupur that she was kidnapped on 08.12.2009.
It was mentioned in the said order that the first Respondent was arrested on 02.05.2012 and was detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
The first Respondent filed O.A. No.165 of 2016 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench challenging his suspension and the charge memo dated 29.10.2013.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench refused to interfere with the charge memo by holding that the first Respondent had number exhausted his remedies by filing his objections or statement of defence.
The Tribunal allowed O.A. No.165 of 2016 filed by the first Respondent by revoking his suspension.
Thereafter, he was arrested on 02.05.2012.
The first Respondent filed Writ Petition No.39989 of 2016 in the High Court of Madras challenging the judgment of the Tribunal in A. No.165 of 2016 in respect of the refusal to quash the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2018.08.21 172550 IST Reason charges framed against him.
The first Respondent filed an application for bail which was rejected by the High Court on 20.04.2012.
Liberty was given to the first Respondent to raise all the points before the appropriate authority.
The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu by an order dated 10.05.2012 placed the first Respondent under suspension with effect from 02.04.2012 in terms of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 3 of the All India Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1969 until further orders.
