G ANANDAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "2,53,798 persons have applied for 13,320 constable posts". The above is the news publication about the constable selection. The candidates are required to 1) undergo written examination successfully; 2) to have minimum prescribed physical fitness; 3) undergo Medical test; 4) and undergo Training for 9 months. After going through the above procedures only, the constables would be appointed. One will be surprised to know some of the police personnel run away from their duty and they are declared as "DESERTORS". Some of such deserters challenged their dismissal from service in these writ petitions. W.P.No.93 of 2008 The petitioner, who was declared as a "Deserter" and removed subsequently from service is before this Court, challenging the removal order as confirmed by the appellate authority.

(2.) THE petitioner was serving as Railway Police. As he was indisposed on 03.11.1998 A.N., he could not report to the duty thereafter. Since the petitioner absented himself for more than 21 days, the Superintendent of Police, declared the petitioner as a deserter from 3.11.1998, by proceedings dated 27.11.1998. However, the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 59th day and he was taken back to the service on 31.12.1998. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued on 5.3.1999. Based on the enquiry report dated 24.5.1999, the petitioner was removed from service on 20.7.2006. Against the said order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 24.7.2006 which was dismissed by order dated 12.8.2006.

(3.) HE relied upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NARINDER MOHAN ARYA VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713, and the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in M.S.Narayanan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Branch) represented by its Registrar High Court Buildings, Chennai and Others reported in (2008) 6 MLJ 863 and the order of the First Bench of this Court passed on 27.1.2011 in W.A.No.58 of 2011 in R.Ramesh Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram and another wherein, in similar circumstances, the punishment of dismissal from service was found to be disproportionate to the charges levelled against the desertor and giving such findings, the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter with regard to the quantum of punishment with a direction that the delinquent officer therein shall not make any claim with regard to wages. He also produced the similar orders passed by the then Director General of Police, wherein the order of dismissal of many deserters were set aside. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the punishment imposed is disproportionate.