G RAMESH Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the respondents, quash the proceedings of the first respondent bearing Rc.No.B2/Ap.79/2004 dated 18.12.2004 and the order of the second respondent bearing J2/P.R.No.168/93 under Rule 3(b) dated 29.09.2004 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition averred that he joined the services of the respondent-police as Grade II Police Constable on 12.09.1986 and he was posted in the Armed Reserve Police at Kancheepuram. According to the petitioner, he has been discharging his duties sincerely and efficiently to the utmost satisfaction of the superior officers.

(3.) MR. Balan Haridoss, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner absented himself, he has offered proper explanation to the effect that while he was on duty on 12.05.1993, due to fever and vomiting, he had rushed to the nearby clinic and on reaching the clinic, his illness became worse and consequently lost his conscience. The physical condition of the petitioner was informed to his wife and his wife had taken him to Arakkonam for further treatment. On recovery, the petitioner reported before the second respondent along with the medical certificate and he was allowed to join duty on 09.07.2003. According to the petitioner, only on account of serious illness, he could not report for duty and his absence/abscondence was neither wilful nor wanton. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that after the issuance of the charge memo dated 23.08.1993, domestic enquiry was conducted and enquiry officer has submitted his report on 07.10.1993 to the Disciplinary Authority viz., the second respondent. However, the second respondent has chosen to pass an order of punishment of dismissal from service only on 29.09.2004 i.e. nearly after lapse of 11 years and therefore, the said delay would definitely vitiate the impugned order. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the charge memo, no particulars have been stated with regard to the past delinquency of the petitioner. Further the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the said aspect also and awarded punishment of dismissal from service and the Appellate Authority has also placed reliance upon the past delinquency of the petitioner and confirmed the order of dismissal from service. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that unless the petitioner is put on notice in respect of past delinquency, the impugned order of dismissal from service is per se unsustainable. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in any event, the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the alleged delinquency on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the quantum of punishment requires consideration.