N KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in P. R. 102/hi (2)/2003 dated 31. 10. 2003 imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from service and consequential order passed by the 1st Respondent in Rc. No. 194/61788/apii (2)/2005 dated 07. 06. 2005 in Na. Ka. No. 20058/c6/c22/1996 dated 16. 03. 2005 and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service.

(2.) 2 (i) Petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 17. 01. 1986, and promoted as Grade I Police Constable in the year 1995. While he was serving in Jolarpet Police Station, Vellore District he was dealt with on a charge memo in P. R. No. 102/03/u/r 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, for dereliction of duty by absenting himself from 18. 02. 2003 to till 10. 03. 2003 for a period of 21 days and became a deserter. On report sent by Inspector of Police, Jolarpet, the Petitioner was treated as deserter as per rule 88 (1) of P. S. O. , vol. I (ii) In the desertion order Petitioner was directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District within 60 days from the date of his absence 18. 02. 2003. The Petitioner appeared before Superintendent of Police on 18. 04. 2003, with his representation to take him back for duty. Considering his request Petitioner was taken back for duty vide District order 820/2003 (L2 (1)/10303/03) dated 25. 04. 2003. (iii) For the offence of desertion committed by the writ petitioner charges were framed against the Petitioner and the charge memo was served on 07. 08. 2006. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupathur appointed as enquiry officer and he had conducted the oral enquiry and held that the charge as proved. Report of the enquiry officer was served on the writ petitioner on 03. 10. 2003, calling upon him to submit his representation. Despite two reminders the Petitioner did not submit further representation. Agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of "compulsory Retirement" with effect from 05. 11. 2003 by the order dated 30. 10. 2003. (iv) The writ petitioner did not prefer any appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, within a period of 30 days against the punishment of "compulsory Retirement". On expiry of the appeal time, Deputy Inspector General of Police by the order dater 28. 01. 2004, confirmed the punishment of "compulsory Retirement". Later the Petitioner had preferred a grievance petition before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was forwarded to the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner had also filed a mercy petition directly to Director General of Police with a request to reinstate him in service. Considering the same along with other connected records and observing that the Petitioner is a repeated offender, the 1st Respondent rejected the same by the impugned order dated 07. 06. 2005. The punishment of "compulsory Retirement" is challenged in this writ petition. (v) Opposing the Petition, the Respondents have filed counter stating that sufficient reasonable opportunities were given to the Petitioner to defend in the enquiry proceedings and to further submit his representation and the disciplinary proceedings was held in accordance with Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Danda) Rules, 1955 and in strict compliance with principle of natural justice and the punishment of "compulsory Retirement" is proportionately less.

(3.) CHALLENGING the impugned order the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S. Ravi, has submitted that for delinquency of absence absenting for a period of 21 days punishment of "compulsory Retirement" is disproportionate and excessive. Drawing the attention of the court to a circular memorandum of Director General of Police in Rc. No. 243881/ap. I (1)/90, dated 30. 10. 1990, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in the circular it has been clearly stated that after taking the delinquent for duty, imposing punishment of "compulsory Retirement" is in violation of the circular.