A INICO Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 14.9.2010, dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground of unauthorized absence from service and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Home Guard on 14.2.1986 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Section Leader, Section Leader, Assistant Polton Commandant and lastly, while he was serving as Polton Commandant, he was terminated from service on the ground that he unauthorizedly absented from duty from 23.6.2010 to 27.6.2010, A notice dated 30.8.2010 was issued to the petitioner for reporting duty, wherein it is stated that if the petitioner is called for duty, henceforth he should report for duty, failing which he will be terminated from service.

(3.) The impugned order of termination was passed on 14.9.2010 stating that the petitioner failed to report for duty when Tamil Conference was held at Coimbatore. The impugned order is challenged mainly on the ground that before terminating the service of the petitioner, no charge memo was issued, no explanation was called for and no enquiry was conducted. The petitioner having been appointed as Home Guard on 14.2.1986 and promoted to various posts, he is entitled to get protection guaranteed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The said procedure having not been followed, the impugned order is unsustainable.