(1.) The petitioner entered service as Sub Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force in the year 1999. He availed medical leave for 7 days from 01/06/2009, which was granted on the strength of Ext. P1 medical leave certificate, issued by the Medical Officer of Trivandrum Airport. The petitioner did not rejoin duty on 08/06/2009 on expiry of the leave. He reported for duty only on 12/06/2009 along with Ext. P3 medical fitness certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Trivandrum Airport. After the petitioner rejoined duty, the first respondent issued Ext. P5 memorandum dated 19/06/2009 accompanied by a memo of charges, calling upon the petitioner to submit his representation, if any, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the memorandum. It was alleged that the petitioner who had availed leave for 7 days from 01/06/2009 to 07/06/2009 was found absent at his declared residential address when Sri. Adarsa Kumar V., Sub Inspector of Police along with Constables Sri. R. Bala Subramanian and Sri. H. K. Soren, made enquiries, that he did not join duty on 08/06/2009 after expiry of the medical leave, but overstayed the leave without intimation to or permission from the competent authority and rejoined duty only on 12/06/2009. It was also alleged that the said act on the part of the petitioner amounts to serious violation of force discipline and dereliction of duty and an act highly unbecoming of an enrolled member of an Armed Force of the Union.
(2.) Upon receipt of Ext. P5 memorandum, the petitioner submitted Ext. P6 reply dated 26/09/2009. In that reply he stated that while he was on medical leave his brother, who is employed in Gujarat came to visit him on 03/06/2009 and on his compulsion he went out with his brother and family in the evening of 06/06/2009 and returned at 8 pm on the same day, that in his absence three persons came and made enquiries about him, that on coming to know of it from the owner of the house where he is residing, he called Sri. Prasad Kumar, Inspector of the Crime Intelligence Wing and on the next day he contacted the Deputy Commandant and explained his medical condition to him. Along with Ext. P6 reply he also produced medical reports to prove his health condition. By Ext. P7 order passed on 11/08/2009, the first respondent awarded the punishment of 'CENSURE' after entering a finding that the charge against the petitioner stands proved.
(3.) Aggrieved by Ext. P7 order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent. By Ext. P8 order passed on 12/10/2009 the second respondent dismissed the appeal and confirmed Ext. P7. The petitioner thereupon moved the third respondent, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chennai by filing a revision petition. On that revision petition, the Deputy Inspector General of Police passed Ext. P10 order dated 17/03/2010, enhancing the penalty to reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years but with the rider that the petitioner will earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments and will not adversely affect his pension. Before the penalty was enhanced, the petitioner was not put on notice or heard. He thereupon filed WP (C) No. 23584 of 2010 in this Court challenging Exts. P7, P8 and P10 orders. By Ext. P11 judgment delivered on 06/08/2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court quashed Ext. P10 order on the short ground that the revisional authority enhanced the punishment without affording the petitioner an opportunity to make a representation against the proposal to enhance the punishment. This Court also directed the revisional authority to reconsider the revision petition filed by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter. In the meanwhile, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion to the category of Inspector for the year 2010 and he was found fit for promotion. Thereupon, the Additional Director General of the Central Industrial Security Force issued Ext. P12 order dated 23/03/2010 promoting the petitioner along with 38 others to the category of Inspector on a regular basis.