S GANESAN Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order in PR. 36/tr. PR (S)/2000 dated 13. 09. 2000 passed by the 4th respondent and order in appeal in proceeding R. C. No. Appeal 19/pr (S)/2000 dated 24. 01. 2001 passed by the 3rd respondent and order in review in proceeding C. No. 33603/ap. 1 (1)/2001 dated 17. 05. 2001 passed by the 2nd respondent and order in G. O. Ms. No. 751 dated 21. 08. 2002 passed by the 1st respondent and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit would run thus:

(3.) IN the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the petitioner, while serving in J-2 Adyar Traffic Police Station had committed the delinquency of desertion with effect from 21. 10. 1999 and hence, he was dealt with in PR 36/tr. PR (S)/2000, under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'rules'), although he appeared before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic (South) in person, on 03. 02. 2000 with his special report. The decision of reinstating him or otherwise was decided on the outcome of completion of the minute drawing officer's findings. The petitioner had not given any valid explanation in the departmental proceedings, since he had not accounted for unauthorised absence as per norms prevailing in Police Standing Order 272 (iii) and (iv) of Volume I and Police Standing Order 95 (i) of Volume-I. Hence, again an opportunity was given to him to defend by submitting his further representation, which was received by the office on 29. 08. 2000. 3a. Though the petitioner's further representation was received and considered, it was decided that the petitioner is a chronic absentee, since he deserted the force on eight earlier occasions apart from other delinquencies since the day of his enlistment till he committed the desertion in the present punishment roll. As such, he was ordered removal from service by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic (South) on 13. 09. 2000. The petitioner acknowledged the orders on 16. 10. 2000, preferred an appeal before the then Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai and the same was negatived by the appellate authority vide his proceedings in RC. No. 19/appeal/pr (S)/2000, dated 24. 01. 2001, which the petitioner acknowledged on 06. 02. 2001. Then, the petitioner gave a review petition dated 13. 02. 2001 to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu and submitted a mercy petition dated 09. 07. 2001 to the Government. After due analysation, the Government rejected the same as devoid of merits vide G. O. Ms. No. 751, Home (Pol. V) Department, dated 21. 08. 2002. The petitioner's wife preferred a grievance petition to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during the grievance day and the Government, after considering it carefully, rejected the same vide Letter No. 5781/pol. V/2002, dated 23. 04. 2003.