B. KALAIVANAN Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent bearing C. No. B1/APP.23/2005 dated 12.11.2005 confirming the order of the second respondent in PR C3/PR.25/04 dated 02.12.2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant posting orders together with all attendant benefits. The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as Grade-II Constable on 14-08-1975, under the respondents and was promoted as Grade I Constable in the year 1995. He could not attend his duty during the period between 06.05.2003 to 11.09.2003, as he was suffering from jaundice. While he was working at Padalur Police Station, he joined duty on 11.09.2003 and attended the roll call in the morning despite the medical advice to take complete rest for some more days, however, he was forced to go on medical leave from that day till 08.01.2004. On 09.01.2004, the petitioner appeared before the Superintendent of Police, the second respondent herein with the proof for getting medical treatment, issued by a qualified doctor. The second respondent refused to take the petitioner for the duty, stating that he was absenting from duty for more than 59 days and directed the petitioner to complete the formalities of punishment report (P.R.). The petitioner was issued with a charge memo bearing P.R. No. 25/04 under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 dated 08.06.2004. He submitted his reply dated 24.06.2004 explaining the circumstances under which he was forced to take leave.

(2.) It is not in dispute that an enquiry was ordered and accordingly, the third respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur conducted the enquiry. A copy of the enquiry report dated 28.09.2004 was received by the petitioner on 11.10.2004 and he submitted his written submission dated 25.10.2004 to the second respondent, requesting to give him posting orders. However, in Na.Ka. No. C3/T.P 25/2004 dated 02.12.2004 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service, was ordered against the petitioner by the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the first respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli. However, the first respondent without considering the facts of the case sympathetically, confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by which, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. C. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have imposed the punishment without following principles of natural justice and also violating Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and pleaded that the impugned orders passed by the respondents, are liable to be set aside in the light of the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court: