B GOVINDASWAMY Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main points raised in this Writ Petition are,(a) Whether the Disciplinary Authority has to issue a show cause notice, before inflicting a major penalty of removal, dismissal, compulsory retirement or reduction in rank, when he takes into consideration the previous penalties suffered by a delinquent.(b) Whether it is obligatory on the Disciplinary/Appointing Authority to include the previous penalties, as part of a charge memo.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he joined the Police Department as Grade-II Police Constable on 15.01.1995 and was dismissed from service, even before the completion of his training. Pursuant to the directions of the Government, he was reinstated in service. Thereafter, he was served with a charge memo in P.R. No,23/97, alleging that he had deserted the force without prior permission. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Enquiry Officer, in his report, dated 15.04.1997, held that the charge as proved. A memo, dated 27.04.1997 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his further representation on the said report. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, third respondent herein, dismissed the petitioner from service, on the ground of desertion. According to the petitioner, the Appeal preferred to the DIG of Police, Chengalpet Range, second respondent herein, was rejected on 24.10.1997 by a non-speaking order. Statutory Review Petition, dated 02.03.1998, submitted to the Inspector General of Police, Law and Order, Chennai, first respondent herein, was also rejected on 06.08.1998. Assailing the orders passed by the statutory authorities, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. S. Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that after the 42nd Amendment Act to the Constitution of India, there is no legal requirement to give a second show cause notice to the delinquent on the proposed penalty and therefore, even if past record is not mentioned in the charge memo or in the notice calling for further explanation on the enquiry report, that would not- amount to violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. He further submitted that it is purely the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to take into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner, while inflicting the penalty and what is taken away by the 42nd Amendment, cannot be revived by issuing a notice, calling for explanation from the delinquent on the proposed penalty. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.