N.CHANDRASEKARANN. Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to order made in CPO No.324/2005, PR/83/F1/05 dated 07.02.2006 passed by the fourth respondent and the consequential and order made in RC No.109749/AP.1(1)/2007 dated 29.08.2007 by the third respondent, and G.O.(2D) No.195, Home (Police-VI) Department dated 16.04.2010, passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with back-wages and continuity of service.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 17.11.1988 in Coimbatore City Armed Reserve. In the year 1998, he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable. The petitioner was absent without proper intimation to the department on three spells viz., one from 20.06.2004 to 09.07.2004, 04.01.2004 to 30.10.2004 and from 28.04.2005. On all three occasions, according to the petitioner, he was ill and was taking medical treatment. On the last occasion of his absence from duty, the petitioner was declared as deserter on 21.05.2005, though he was earlier taken back for duty on 21.10.2004.

(3.) Thereafter, a charge memo dated 20.10.2005 was issued to the petitioner for his absence and as well as for desertion of duty under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. In response to the charge memorandum, the petitioner appears to have submitted a reply on 17.11.2005, explaining the reasons for his absence. However, despite the legitimate explanation offered by the petitioner, the enquiry officer held the charges proved by his report dated 29.12.2005. The petitioner further represented against the enquiry report on 25.01.2006. However, the fourth respondent not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner but agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner vide order dated 03.02.2006. As against the above order of the disciplinary authority, an appeal was preferred to the third respondent, but the same was rejected on 29.08.2007. The petitioner filed two mercy petitions before the first respondent and second respondent and both came to be rejected on 20.07.2007 and 16.04.2010 respectively. The punishment of compulsory retirement is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.