V VIJAYANDRAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion, on 02.04.1981. He was later upgraded as Police Constable Grade-I in 2001. According to the petitioner, he had received more than 50 rewards in his career. While he was working as Head Constable, the petitioner was issued with a Charge-Memo on 05.09.2011, alleging 'unauthorised absence', for a long period. An enquiry was conducted into the charge and on conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted holding the charge proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed a penalty of 'Removal from Service' by order dated 28.11.11. An appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority to the Second Respondent on 05.12.2011. However, the same came to be rejected on 14.02.2012. The orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority, dated 28.11.2011 and 04.02.2012, are put to challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner Mr.Venkatramani would submit that the order of 'Removal from Service' is extremely harsh and excessive since the petitioner had some explanation for his absence during the relevant period. Therefore, without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner in proper perspective, the Enquiry Officer rendered his findings against him and the same has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and ultimately, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of 'Removal from Service'. The Appellate Authority, by a non-speaking order, confirmed the appeal on 14.0201

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the imposition of penalty of 'Dismissal from Service' for desertion, was found to be excessive and harsh by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in W.A.No.58 of 2011 (R.Ramesh vs. 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram), dated 27.01.2011. He would draw the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the said judgment, which are re-produced hereunder: