K SUKUMARAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the impugned order of punishment passed by the third respondent herein in his proceedings in P.R.47/H1/2007 u/r.3(b) dated 30.05.2007 and confirmed by the second respondent herein in his proceedings vide Rc.No.B1/5347/7948/2007 dated 21.07.2007 and further confirmed by the first respondent herein in his proceedings vide Rc.No.169038/AP.2(2)/2007 dated 23.10.2007, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service, together with all consequential service and monetary benefits, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) FACTS and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition, as stated by the petitioner in his affidavit would run thus : 2.1. The petitioner joined the Police Service as Grade II Police Constable on 25.12.1985 and he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable in the year 1988. He has rendered more than 22 years of loyal service to the Department and is maintaining a good record of service, which was appreciated by many of his superior officers. 2.2. The petitioner fell ill due to acute peptic ulcer and therefore, he availed four days' leave from 20.10.2006 to 23.10.2006. Since the petitioner's health condition had worsened, he was unable to join duty on 24.10.2006. He obtained Medical Certificate and sent it to the Superintendent of Police through Registered Post. But, the Superintendent of Police in his order dated 14.11.2006 declared the petitioner as a deserter and a copy of the same was served on the petitioner on 03.12.2006. 2.3. A charge memo under Rule 3(b) of TNPSS (D & A) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'TNPSS Rules') in P.R.No.47/2007 was framed against the petitioner on 29.01.2007 and served on him on the same day. He submitted his explanation stating that he was not able to report for duty on 24.10.2006 due to his ill health. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and an oral enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Salem 2. During the oral enquiry, two official witnesses were examined and the petitioner submitted his further representation. According to the petitioner, he had clearly explained the circumstances of his absence to the Enquiry Officer, but without properly considering his explanation, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved on 05.04.2007. On 30.05.2007, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent herein agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, had imposed a major punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service. 2.4. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent herein. On 21.07.2007, the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner's appeal in a cryptic order and in total violation of Rule 6 of TNPSS Rules. The petitioner further submitted a Revision Petition on 06.09.2007 to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, without properly considering the facts of the petitioner's case, rejected his claim on 23.10.2007 by way of a non-speaking order. It is his grievance that now his entire family has been thrown into the street and he is unable to support his family. 2.5. In identical circumstances, one K.Ponnusamy, H.C.8560 was removed from service for having absented duty for 21 days and on a petition to the Government, which was redirected to the Head of the Department, the above said Ponnusamy was reinstated into service with a modified punishment. However, the petitioner's case has not been considered by the respondent, in a discriminatory manner. In yet another similar circumstance, on 22.03.2008, the respondent passed an order reinstating one P.Karunanithi, Ex.P.C. 1807 of Trichy District, who was dismissed from service on 06.11.1997 for having absented from duty for more than 21 days. According to the petitioner, the punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed on him is disproportionate to the charge of absence, whereas, in similar circumstances, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner therein and ordered reinstatement and hence, the petitioner herein prays to set aside the impugned orders.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to the charges and his entire track of records involve several black marks, postponement of next increment, reduction in time scale of pay for one year with and without cumulative effect, pay reduction by two stages for two years with cumulative effect and compulsory retirement. Therefore, the petitioner deserves the punishment of compulsory retirement, as he is a habitual absentee. It is his further contention that the cases of K.Ponnusamy and P.Karunanidhi are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as in both cases, though the subject of desertion is the same, there is no mention as to how many times they deserted the force. Hence, the case of the petitioner is entirely different and deserves no consideration.