G MUNUSWAMY Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the third respondent dated 19. 1. 1999 dismissing the petitioner from service which was confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 2. 3. 99 as well as the order of the first respondent dated 6. 4. 1999 and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 23. 12. 1985 and promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in 1997. According to the petitioner, he has received 96 rewards for his efficient service. The petitioner was served with a charge memo on 20. 11. 93 in P. R. No. 125/98 for the allegation that he had absented from duty without leave or permission and deserted the police force. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry and held that the charges were proved. Based on the Enquiry Officer's finding, the third respondent, by order dated 19. 1. 1999, passed a final order. Thereafter, remarks were called for, by the third respondent as to why the Enquiry Officer's finding, cannot be accepted, for which, the petitioner submitted his remarks and after getting the remarks, the third respondent, passed the order of punishment of removal from service, by order dated 19. 1. 1999. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalputtu Range, which was also dismissed on 2. 3. 1999. The petitioner filed a review before the Inspector General of Police (Law and Order) and the same was also rejected on 6. 4. 1999 by the first respondent. The said orders are challenged in this writ petition by contending that the petitioner was not feeling well to attend duty and he had suffered sudden heart attack. The petitioner also claimed that he has put in 13 years of service and considering his family circumstances and the previous records, the punishment ought to have been modified by the second respondent/appellate authority or by the Inspector General of Police.

(3.) THE respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1997 and he was having 51 rewards to his credit. The Enquiry Officer, found that the charges levelled against the petitioner, were proved and thereafter, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings and imposed the punishment. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he had heart attack and also a diabetic cum blood pressure patient and with that complicated health condition, he is not suitable for active police work. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service for his desertion and unauthorised absence, needs no modification.