Verify Assets Declared By Police Officers, Confiscate Illegally Accumulated Wealth In Case Of Discrepancy: Madras High Court To State

Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules requires every police officer to submit a return of his assets and liabilities within three months of first appointment and thereafter after an interval of 5 years. It also prohibits a police officer from acquiring or disposing immovable property without prior notice to the prescribed authority.

“The respondents one and two are directed to verify the mandatory declarations being given by the Police Officials periodically across the sate of Tamil Nadu with reference to rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964, and verify the genuinity of the declarations including all the assets purchased in the name of the family members, relatives and persons known to them. In the event of any discrepancies, contradictions or otherwise, all appropriate actions have to be initiated, including confiscation of illegally accumulated wealth through corrupt practices,” the court noted.

Justice SM Subramaniam also directed the authorities to ensure that the procedure contemplated for confiscation of properties are adopted in all corruption cases and if necessary, interim attachments may also be made.

The court also directed the Home Secretary and the DGP to ensure that Special Cells are constituted in the offices of DGP and Director General of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption by providing separate telephone numbers enabling citizens to raise complaints and provide information about corrupt activities in Government Departments.

“The respondents one and two are directed to ensure that Special Cells are constituted in the offices of the Director General of Police and Director General of Vigilance and Anti-corruption by providing separate telephone numbers, mobile numbers/ Whatsapp numbers enabling the citizens to register their complaints or provide information about corrupt activities in Government Departments and instrumentalities of the State,” the court said.

The directions were made in a plea filed by M Rajendran, who was a Government Employee and against whom action was initiated on the allegation of accumulation of disproportionate wealth along with other persons. The court noted that Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department had also initiated proceedings but the same were dropped.

Though the plea was filed to quash the criminal proceedings against him and others, the court noted that the trial had already commenced and thus, the prayer as sought for could not be granted. However, the court directed the Judicial Magistrate to expedite the trial and dispose of the case.

The court also noted that even though Rajendran had made specific allegation of corruption against some of the officers, the same was not properly enquired into by the Home Secretary, DGP or the Superintendent of Police.

The court observed that even though it was possible that bald allegations are made by the accused, if such allegations were made with specific incidents including date, time, amount given to the police etc, the higher officials could not close their eyes and an enquiry was warranted to cull out the truth and take actions if necessary.

Case Title: M Rajendran and Others v The Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 196

Counsel for Petitioner: Mrs.V.S.Manimekalai For Mr.V.S.Selvaraj

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader, Mr.H.Manivannan, Mr.V.Sivalingam For M/s. Siva Associates

Amicus Curiae: Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel