P.RAVIKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been directed against the impugned G.O. (2D) No.146 - Home (Pol V) Department, dtd. 20/3/2009 passed by the first respondent.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the deceased petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal heirs were brought on record. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the deceased petitioner was selected as Grade II Constable and enlisted on 25/10/1984 and his service was confirmed with effect from 5/2/1987. After putting in ten years of service, he was promoted as Head Constable. While so, he went on medical leave from 7/11/2005 to 30/11/2005. As he did not recover completely, he could not attend the work from 7/12/2005 to 27/5/2005 for 21 days because of the ill health suffered by him. However, based on the report of the Inspector, Ambattur Estate Police Station dtd. 8/11/2005, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Chennai, the fourth respondent herein by proceedings dtd. 24/1/2006 passed an order calling upon the petitioner to join duty on or before 4/2/2006 and finally, the fourth respondent by proceedings dtd. 10/8/2006 passed an order stating that the petitioner had submitted a petition before him and explained the cause of the alleged desertion and on that basis, he was taken back for duty. While so, he was served with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Service Rule 1955) on the ground of desertion from duty and the petitioner offered his explanation to the charge memo stating that he was taking treatment in Government Ambattur Estate, SIDCO Hospital for 30 days from 7/11/2005 on medical leave and he could not recover from ill health and he was advised to take Homeopathy treatment at Kanniyakumari and he was unable to inform the same in advance to the T2-Ambattur Police Station.

(3.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Maduravoil was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges and he drew the minutes holding that the deceased petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him as the ground of desertion from the duty for 21 days without leave letter was proved. Although a telegraphic message was given to inform that he should appear for the enquiry before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Maduravoil, no passport for movement from T2 Ambattur Police Station to Maduravoi Police Station was given to him in accordance with rules. However, the fourth respondent called upon the petitioner to submit his further representation on the proved charges as guilty within 15 days from the date of receipt of the memo. Even without intimating the proposed punishment likely to be awarded to him, the fifth respondent imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service by order dtd. 10/3/2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal un- successfully and the fourth respondent treated the Appeal as Review Petition and having accepted the medical certificate, permitted the petitioner to join duty back. Thereafter, the fourth respondent passed an order dtd. 26/6/2007 holding that the deceased petitioner was a habitual deserter.