KAMALAKANNAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When on the basis of proven charges that the petitioner had deserted his service, he was imposed with a punishment of removal from service on 26/3/1999 by the first respondent, which came to be modified by the third respondent on 13/7/2004 into one of compulsory retirement, the petitioner had challenged the punishment before this Court in W.P.No.886 of 2007, by an order dtd. 10/4/2012, this Court had relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi reported in '2004 4 SCC 560' and 'B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India' reported in '1995 6 SCC 749' and on an established view that the punishment of compulsory retirement was not in conformity with the proven charges, had remitted back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, to reconsider the proportionality of the punishment alone. In this background, the fourth respondent herein, had passed the impugned order dtd. 1/4/2014, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement once again. This order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained on two substantial grounds. Firstly, when this Court had remitted back the matter through its order dtd. 10/4/2012 in WP.No.886 of 2007, the very purpose for such remission was to reduce the original punishment of compulsory retirement. The order came to be passed on, by relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which it was held that in cases of unauthorised absence, the punishment of removal from service would be excessive and therefore, the High Courts require to remit back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for re-consideration of the punishments on the ground of disproportionality. While that being so, the only option available to the respondents is to impose a lesser punishment. However, in total disregard to the purpose for which the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority, the original punishment has been reiterated in the present impugned order. On this ground, the punishment cannot be sustained.

(3.) Secondly, the Director General of Police, in Circulars dtd. 30/10/1990 and 6/12/2007, had ordered to the Disciplinary Authorities that while dealing with dismissal cases, in cases of desertion, the punishment of removal/dismissal or compulsory retirement, should not be imposed.