Judgment The writ petition challenges the charge memo framed against the petitioner under 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The petitioner is working as a Head Constable in the Police department. It appears that in respect of his tenancy in D.No.11/6 Mahalakshmi street, there are some disputes between the petitioners wife Mrs.K.Lakshmi and the landlord regarding rental amount and the landlord is insisting to vacate the petitioners wife and the petitioner from the premises. In respect of the said dispute the petitioners wife has filed a suit in O.S.No.444/2007 on the file of the District Munsif, Alandur for an injunction against the landlord from interfering with her possession. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is living with her wife in the same premises. But the dispute is purely civil in nature in respect of the petitioner and his wife occupying a portion as tenants. The main charge framed against the petitioner shows that the petitioner is liable for disciplinary proceedings due to the reason that through his wife while occupying the residential house, he is refusing to vacate the house and failed to pay the rent for seven months to the landlord and through his wife he has also filed a suit in the Civil Court without permission from the Department and therefore it is in violation of Rule 111 of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders and Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Police Conduct Rules. 2. The Impugned charge memo is challenged on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and the petitioner being a police Head constable cannot be expected to get permission from the department when his wife is a tenant in respect of a portion relating to which, the dispute arose with the landlord and therefore the question of permission from Higher Authorities does not arise. 3. The second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thuraipakkam Range has filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the second respondent has been nominated as enquiry officer for proceeding against the petitioner in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner under rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 3. The second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thuraipakkam Range has filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the second respondent has been nominated as enquiry officer for proceeding against the petitioner in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner under rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Admittedly it is the first respondent, Joint Commissioner, who is the authority to initiate the proceedings, who by delegation of powers, is stated to have permitted the Assistant Commissioner , Madipakkam Range, to frame the impugned charge. In the counter affidavit, it is categorically admitted that in respect of the civil dispute between the petitioners wife and the landlord to the effect that the petitioners wife has refused to vacate the premises and has also thwarted the attempts of the owner in selling the property to third parties for that action has been done by the petitioner by way of instigation. Strangely, the charge itself shows that the same has been framed on the violation of the above said rules, wherein it is made clear that the petitioners wife has refused to vacate the premises for more than seven months causing disturbance to the landlord and the petitioners wife has filed a suit without obtaining proper permission from the appointing authority of the petitioner. The rules which are referred to, nowhere contemplate that even as a police officer, in respect of the civil dispute which are not connected with the service conditions, he should obtain prior permission. If that is so, the question of the petitioners wife obtaining prior permission for filing a suit against the landlord does not arise. For the purpose of appreciating the above said fact, it is relevant to extract the rules which are quoted in the charges. 4. Rule 111 of Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders, which is as follows PSO 111.Police officers addressing Government direct,etc., prohibited.- (1) Save as provided in rules and orders issued by the Director-General from time to time, Police Officers shall not correspond direct with Government in any matter relating to their official duties. They shall on no account address the Government directly on personal matters. Written representations of this nature should be made only through the proper official channel. They shall on no account address the Government directly on personal matters. Written representations of this nature should be made only through the proper official channel. (2)(a) Police officers of all ranks are forbidden to approach officials of other departments and non-officials for support in pressing individual claims or obtaining redress of grievances of an official nature. .(b) Police Officers are forbidden to approach members of the State Legislatures or Members of Parliament with a view to having their grievances made the subject of interpellations in the Legislatures or Parliament. .(c) The prohibition in clause 2 (a) above shall apply to the acquisition of certificate or letter of recommendation other than certificates or formal letters addressed to superintendents concerned bringing to their notice specific service rendered to the writer or under the official cognizance of the writer. .(3) Police Officers are prohibited from obtaining interviews, with Ministers or Secretaries to Government without the prior sanction of the Director-General. .(4) Police Officers of all ranks are prohibited from applying directly or through their superior officers for promotion when vacancies occur and officers are prohibited from recommending subordinates for particular posts otherwise than as provided for by the rules or, if ordered to do so, by the authority empowered to fill such post. .(5) Police Officers are forbidden from bringing any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further their interest in respect of matters pertaining to their service, Any violation of this provision will entail disciplinary action against the Police officer concerned and the onus of proving that he was not responsible for bringing about the influence will lie on him. shows that the Act complained of under the impugned charge memo is nowhere comparable to any one of the instances made in the said Police Standing Orders. 5. Again rule 24 of Tamil Nadu Police Conduct Rules, which is as follows, Rule 24.Integrity and devotion to duty: (1)Every Police Officer shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. (2)Every Police Officer, shall take all possible steps to ensure integrity and devotion to duty by all subordinate Police Officer for the time being under his control and authority. (2)Every Police Officer, shall take all possible steps to ensure integrity and devotion to duty by all subordinate Police Officer for the time being under his control and authority. (3)(i)No Police Officer shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior. (ii) The direction of the Official superior shall ordinarily be in writing. Oral directions to subordinates shall be avoided. Where the issue of oral direction becomes unavoidable, the official superior shall confirm in writing immediately thereafter. (iii)A Police Officer who has received oral direction from his official superior shall see the confirmation of the same in writing as early as possible, where upon it shall be the duty of the official superior to confirm the direction in writing. (iv)No Police Officer shall in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him evade the responsibility devolving legitimately on him and seek instruction from, or approval of a superior authority when such instruction or approval is not necessary in the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities. Explanation:- A Police Officer who habitually fails to perform a task assigned to him within the time set for the purpose and with the quality of performance expected of him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty within the meaning of sub-rule (1); (5)in rule 36, after the second provision, the following proviso shall be added, namely:- "Provided also that such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the rules so repeated and a contravention of any of the said rules shall be punishable as if it were a contravention of these rules". (G.O.Ms.No.465 Home(Pol.VI) dt 5. 2001). also does not have any relationship to the charge framed against the petitioner at all. In fact the integrity and devotion to duty contemplated under rule 24 of Tamil Nadu Police Conduct Rules, relates to the work assigned to a police officer, during the performance of his duty as police officer and it has nothing to do with any civil rights which are otherwise available to the police officer. In fact the integrity and devotion to duty contemplated under rule 24 of Tamil Nadu Police Conduct Rules, relates to the work assigned to a police officer, during the performance of his duty as police officer and it has nothing to do with any civil rights which are otherwise available to the police officer. In such circumstances, it has to be held that the charges are extraneous and the respondents have no jurisdiction to frame such charges against the petitioner so long as the charge do not relate to the conduct of the petitioner as a police officer either directly or remotely and do not cover in any one of the rules quoted in the impugned charge memo. In such view of the matter, I have no hesitation to allow the writ petition quashing the impugned charge memo on the ground that the charges are not prima facie maintainable as per rules quoted in the charge memo. 6. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.