G ANANDAN Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this case is as to whether the order of removal passed by the second respondent dated 20. 07. 2000 and subsequent confirmation of the same by the first respondent dated 12. 08. 2006, is disproportionate to the charge framed against the petitioner. The petitioner joined service as a Police Constable and completed more than 15 years of service. While working in the control room traffic on 03. 11. 1998 he was forced to go on leave but before expiry of 60 days, he has reported duty and continuing the same.

(2.) ON 05. 03. 1999 a charge was framed against the petitioner that he has absented from duty from 03. 11. 1998 and the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report dated 24. 05. 1999, found the charges proved against the petitioner. For the charge framed under Rule 3 (b) of the Police Subordinate Service Rule, he has submitted his explanation on 22. 05. 1999 and the second respondent after enquiry has passed the order of removal on 20. 07. 2006 which was confirmed by the first respondent on 12. 08. 2006.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that in respect of desertion, removal from service is a disproportionate punishment. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per circular issued by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, dated 05. 12. 1990 in cases of deserters, who were reinstated, after they appeared before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, within the time limit of 60 days, they should be punished only under Rule 3 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for unauthorized absence from duty by imposing minor penalties.