K P NAGARAJAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner is absent. In normal course, we could have dismissed the writ petition for default. However, on going through the materials on record, we find that the basic prayer made by the petitioner relating to the disproportionate nature of punishment could be considered.

(2.) THE petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence for a long period. In the Original Application filed by the petitioner, one of the main contentions raised was relating to punishment. It was contended that since the petitioner had worked in the department for about 16 years without any previous blemish, the order of punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and, at any rate, the punishment of compulsory retirement could have been imposed and with that the petitioner and his family members could have atleast received the pensionary benefits. However, the Tribunal rejected such contention by observing that since the petitioner was absent for a long period, it cannot be said that the dismissal was disproportionate.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, while upholding the findings in the departmental proceedings, we modify the punishment from dismissal to the one of compulsory retirement. It shall be deemed that the petitioner had been compulsorily retired with effect from 21.9.1994.