SWAMINATHAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: THE petitioner had entered the service, as a directly recruited Police Constable, on 1.8.1984, in the Ramanathapuram East District Armed Reserve. He was transferred to the Taluk Police in the year, 1986. He was promoted as Grade I Police Constable in the year, 1997. On 15.3.2000, the petitioner was working as Grade I Police Constable in Thirupachethy Police Station in Sivaganga District. From 15.3.2000 to 18.3.2000, the petitioner had gone on casual leave with the permission of the Inspector of Police. Earlier, on 14.3.2000, he was directed to attend Treasury duty at Sivaganga. On 19.3.2000 he could not join the duty due to ill health. THErefore, the petitioner had submitted a leave application, along with the medical certificate. In spite of submitting an application for leave, on medical grounds, the petitioner was declared as a deserter. THEreafter, the petitioner was not taken back on duty. He was served with a charge memo alleging that he had deserted the force, without leave or permission, continuously, for a period of 21 days, from 15.3.2000, in P.R.No,97/2000.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the punishment of reduction in rank, imposed on the petitioner, by the order of the third respondent, dated 31.5.2001, is not in accordance with the Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. THE third respondent, while imposing the punishment of reduction in rank, ought to have stated the period for which the punishment shall be effective and as to whether on restoration the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and if so, to what extent. Rule 29 of the Fundamental Rules reads as follows: