JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. G ANANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (This Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.27930 of 2006 dated 4.1.2007.) This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.27630 of 2006 dated 4.1.2007, setting aside the order of dismissal from service and remitting the matter with a direction to give strict warning to the writ petitioner/respondent herein.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are that the writ petitioner/respondent herein was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 30.8.1988 and he served in Chennai City Police, Armed Reserve, SRP and Traffic Zone. While he was working in the Control room traffic on 3.11.1998 due to his ill-health, he went on leave for 60 days and he joined duty before the expiry of 60 days. A charge memo was issued in PR.No.15/99 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, by the Superintendent of Police. THE respondent herein submitted his explanation on 22.5.1999 and the explanation having been found not satisfactory, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Railway Police, Central Madras, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. THE Enquiry Officer found that the charge of absenting from duty from 3.11.1998 was proved and thereafter the second petitioner herein, by order dated 20.7.2006 dismissed the respondent from service. THE appeal filed by the respondent before the first respondent was also dismissed on 12.8.2006. THE said orders of removal from service, confirmed by the appellate authority was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.27930 of 2006 by contending that the respondent was permitted to join duty by the Superintendent of Police, before expiry of 60 days on 31.12.1998, after satisfying with the medical certificate produced by him and therefore he could not be treated as deserted from duty as per Rule 88(1) of the Police Standing Orders and the circular issued by the Director General of Police dated 5.10.1990 states that for desertion, charge memo should not be issued under Rule 3(b) and it could be issued only under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. THE other reason given to challenge the order is that the punishment is disproportionate to the delinquency and the appellate authority has not passed a speaking order and the same is in violation of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contended that framing charge against the respondent for desertion is in accordance with PSO 95(1) and Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, and the learned single Judge was not right in issuing positive direction to impose severe warning.