High Court · 2024

W.P.No.2834 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.08.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P.No.2834 of 2020 andWMP.No.3276 of 2020S.Mahadevan ...PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Secretariat, Chennai 600 0092.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 0043.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai 600 0074.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Transport (North), Chennai 600 007 ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned GO.(2D).No.288, Home (Police-V) Department, dated 09.05.2006 issued by the first respondent dated 09.11.2018 made in Rc.No.136091/AP.3(2)/2018 dated 09.11.2018 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020passed by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with attendant benefits. For Petitioner: Mr.N.ManoharanFor Respondents : Mr.S.Arumugam, Government AdvocateORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 09.05.2006 and the order dated 09.11.2018 on the file of the second respondent thereby dismissed the appeal and mercy petition as against the order of dismissal from service.2.The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Constable on 17.03.1986. While being so, the petitioner was served with charge memo dated 02.02.2000 under Police Standing Order 88 Sub Clause(1) alleging that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 27.09.1999. Though the petitioner submitted explanation, without satisfying with the same, enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer concluded that the charge 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020is proved against the petitioner. On the strength of the said report, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 13.07.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the third respondent and the same was also dismissed by order dated 28.12.2000 and the revision was also dismissed by the second respondent by an order dated 13.02.2001. After period of five years, once again the petitioner filed grievance petition before the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu on the ground of mercy. It was again forwarded to the third respondent and the same was rejected on the ground that already the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.1321 of 2002 and the same was dismissed on 03.06.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner's wife submitted another representation and the same was also rejected as devoid of merits. Once again, the petitioner submitted representation and it was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in WP.No.14910 of 2018 and this Court by an order dated 20.06.2018 directed to consider the same and to pass orders. The second respondent considered the above facts and circumstances and rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner, 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020which is challenged in this writ petition. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the charge, the petitioner deserted his service and as such, the petitioner was dismissed from service, which is disproportionate to the charge. Further, it is against the circular issued by the second respondent dated 06.12.2007. Accordingly, imposing maximum penalty of removal from service for desertion cases is unfair and cannot be justified and consequently the same cannot be accepted. Therefore, the disciplinary authorities are directed not to impose punishment of removal from service or compulsory retirement for desertion cases. In view of the said circular, this Court held that the order of removal / dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charge and imposed lesser punishment. He also relied upon several judgments in order to substantiate the said contention. He further submitted that the mercy petition was rejected on the ground that the petitioner already committed similar illegalities ( i.e. unauthorised absence), however the same is not the charge. Therefore, the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing to defend the said ground by way of 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020explanation or before the enquiry officer.4.Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court. 5.On perusal of the counter filed by the fourth respondent and on hearing the submissions of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, revealed that the petitioner was served with charge memo dated 21.02.2000 consisting the following charge under Rule 3b of Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955:ePh; fle;j 13/09/1999 md;W fhiy epiyaj;jpy; nuhy;fhYf;F M$uhfp gzpbra;a ntz;oath;. M$uhfhky; jd;dpr;irahf vt;tpj mDkjpnah my;yJ tpLg;ngh ,d;wp Mg;brd;l; Mfp. gpd;dh; murpdh; njhl;l kUj;Jtkidapy; 14 ehl;fs; kUj;Jt tpLg;g[ bgw;W. mjd;go 26/9/99 tiu kUj;Jt tpLg;ig mDgtpj;J 27/9/99 md;W Kw;gfy; gzpf;F mwpf;if bra;a ntz;oath; kPz;Lk; Mg;brd;l; Mfp bjhlh;e;J 21 ehl;fSf;Fk; nky; Md fhuzj;jhy;. tpl;nlhoahf fUjp 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020Miz ,lg;gl;lJ/ ,J xGf;fKk; fl;Lg;ghLk; kpf;f fhty;Jiwapy; kpft[k; fz;of;fj;jf;f Fw;wk;/ 5.1On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted explanation and without being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. After completion of enquiry, enquiry officer held that the charge is proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted explanation and the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service on 13.07.2000.6.In the order dated 13.07.2000 passed by the fourth respondent, it is stated that due to desertion of his duty, the petitioner was imposed with punishment of dismissal from service. It did not whisper about his previous punishments on unauthorised absence. As against the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal before the third respondent and the same was also dismissed by an order dated 28.12.2000. In fact, once again the petitioner filed review before the second respondent and the same was also dismissed on 15.06.2001. The same was already challenged by the petitioner before the Tamilnadu 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.1321 of 2002 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 03.06.2002 and confirmed the order of dismissal from service. Suppressing these facts, once again, the petitioner submitted petition during grievance day before the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the same was forwarded to the first respondent. The first respondent by its order dated 09.05.2016 in GO.(2D).No.288 Home (Police-V) Department, rejected the petition submitted by the petitioner as devoid of merits. Once again, the wife of the petitioner submitted mercy petition before the first respondent and the same was also rejected by order dated 10.08.2009 in GO 2(D).No.339 Home (Pol.V) Department. Further, the petitioner submitted another representation and it was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in WP.No.14910 of 2018 and by an order dated 20.06.1986, this Court directed to consider the same. It was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 09.11.2018. Once again the petitioner has challenged the orders passed on his petition submitted during grievance day and the order passed on the representation submitted by the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, the order of dismissal from service was already 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020confirmed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the authorities. In fact, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal as against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.1321 of 2002 dated 03.06.2002. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not helpful to the case on hand and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. As such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 27.08.2024Neutral citation: Yes/No Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderlok8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020To1.Secretary to Government, The State of Tamilnadu, Department of Home, Secretariat, Chennai 600 0092.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 0043.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai 600 0074.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Transport (North), Chennai 600 0079/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokW.P.No.2834 of 202010/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 202027.08.202411/11

W.P.No.2834 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.08.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P.No.2834 of 2020 andWMP.No.3276 of 2020S.Mahadevan ...PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Secretariat, Chennai 600 0092.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 0043.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai 600 0074.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Transport (North), Chennai 600 007 ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned GO.(2D).No.288, Home (Police-V) Department, dated 09.05.2006 issued by the first respondent dated 09.11.2018 made in Rc.No.136091/AP.3(2)/2018 dated 09.11.2018 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020passed by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with attendant benefits. For Petitioner: Mr.N.ManoharanFor Respondents : Mr.S.Arumugam, Government AdvocateORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 09.05.2006 and the order dated 09.11.2018 on the file of the second respondent thereby dismissed the appeal and mercy petition as against the order of dismissal from service.2.The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Constable on 17.03.1986. While being so, the petitioner was served with charge memo dated 02.02.2000 under Police Standing Order 88 Sub Clause(1) alleging that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 27.09.1999. Though the petitioner submitted explanation, without satisfying with the same, enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer concluded that the charge 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020is proved against the petitioner. On the strength of the said report, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 13.07.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the third respondent and the same was also dismissed by order dated 28.12.2000 and the revision was also dismissed by the second respondent by an order dated 13.02.2001. After period of five years, once again the petitioner filed grievance petition before the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu on the ground of mercy. It was again forwarded to the third respondent and the same was rejected on the ground that already the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.1321 of 2002 and the same was dismissed on 03.06.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner's wife submitted another representation and the same was also rejected as devoid of merits. Once again, the petitioner submitted representation and it was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in WP.No.14910 of 2018 and this Court by an order dated 20.06.2018 directed to consider the same and to pass orders. The second respondent considered the above facts and circumstances and rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner, 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020which is challenged in this writ petition. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the charge, the petitioner deserted his service and as such, the petitioner was dismissed from service, which is disproportionate to the charge. Further, it is against the circular issued by the second respondent dated 06.12.2007. Accordingly, imposing maximum penalty of removal from service for desertion cases is unfair and cannot be justified and consequently the same cannot be accepted. Therefore, the disciplinary authorities are directed not to impose punishment of removal from service or compulsory retirement for desertion cases. In view of the said circular, this Court held that the order of removal / dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charge and imposed lesser punishment. He also relied upon several judgments in order to substantiate the said contention. He further submitted that the mercy petition was rejected on the ground that the petitioner already committed similar illegalities ( i.e. unauthorised absence), however the same is not the charge. Therefore, the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing to defend the said ground by way of 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020explanation or before the enquiry officer.4.Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court. 5.On perusal of the counter filed by the fourth respondent and on hearing the submissions of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, revealed that the petitioner was served with charge memo dated 21.02.2000 consisting the following charge under Rule 3b of Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955:ePh; fle;j 13/09/1999 md;W fhiy epiyaj;jpy; nuhy;fhYf;F M$uhfp gzpbra;a ntz;oath;. M$uhfhky; jd;dpr;irahf vt;tpj mDkjpnah my;yJ tpLg;ngh ,d;wp Mg;brd;l; Mfp. gpd;dh; murpdh; njhl;l kUj;Jtkidapy; 14 ehl;fs; kUj;Jt tpLg;g[ bgw;W. mjd;go 26/9/99 tiu kUj;Jt tpLg;ig mDgtpj;J 27/9/99 md;W Kw;gfy; gzpf;F mwpf;if bra;a ntz;oath; kPz;Lk; Mg;brd;l; Mfp bjhlh;e;J 21 ehl;fSf;Fk; nky; Md fhuzj;jhy;. tpl;nlhoahf fUjp 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020Miz ,lg;gl;lJ/ ,J xGf;fKk; fl;Lg;ghLk; kpf;f fhty;Jiwapy; kpft[k; fz;of;fj;jf;f Fw;wk;/ 5.1On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted explanation and without being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. After completion of enquiry, enquiry officer held that the charge is proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted explanation and the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service on 13.07.2000.6.In the order dated 13.07.2000 passed by the fourth respondent, it is stated that due to desertion of his duty, the petitioner was imposed with punishment of dismissal from service. It did not whisper about his previous punishments on unauthorised absence. As against the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal before the third respondent and the same was also dismissed by an order dated 28.12.2000. In fact, once again the petitioner filed review before the second respondent and the same was also dismissed on 15.06.2001. The same was already challenged by the petitioner before the Tamilnadu 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.1321 of 2002 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 03.06.2002 and confirmed the order of dismissal from service. Suppressing these facts, once again, the petitioner submitted petition during grievance day before the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the same was forwarded to the first respondent. The first respondent by its order dated 09.05.2016 in GO.(2D).No.288 Home (Police-V) Department, rejected the petition submitted by the petitioner as devoid of merits. Once again, the wife of the petitioner submitted mercy petition before the first respondent and the same was also rejected by order dated 10.08.2009 in GO 2(D).No.339 Home (Pol.V) Department. Further, the petitioner submitted another representation and it was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in WP.No.14910 of 2018 and by an order dated 20.06.1986, this Court directed to consider the same. It was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 09.11.2018. Once again the petitioner has challenged the orders passed on his petition submitted during grievance day and the order passed on the representation submitted by the petitioner in this writ petition. Therefore, the order of dismissal from service was already 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020confirmed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the authorities. In fact, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal as against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.1321 of 2002 dated 03.06.2002. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not helpful to the case on hand and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. As such, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 27.08.2024Neutral citation: Yes/No Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderlok8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020To1.Secretary to Government, The State of Tamilnadu, Department of Home, Secretariat, Chennai 600 0092.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 0043.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai 600 0074.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Transport (North), Chennai 600 0079/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 2020G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokW.P.No.2834 of 202010/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.2834 of 202027.08.202411/11