The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of judicial review in cases of disproportionate punishment and the requirement for the punishment to be proportionate to the charge and the petitioner's explanation.

(PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing in the form of writ to call for the records inconnected with proceedings issued in D.O.604/2004 and 605/2004 Rc.No.H1(2)/P.R.80/2004 dated 07.06.2004 passed by the 5th respondent, C.No.B2/AP.38/2004 dated 12.07.2004 passed by the 4th respondent Rc.No.758/225985/ PR.II(2)/2004 dated 19.05.2005 passed by the 3rd respondent, Rc.No.565/140244/Ap.2(2)/2005 dated 22.10.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent and G.O.(2D) No.321 dated 18.05.2006 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits.)

This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 07.06.2004 followed by the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 12.07.2004 and subsequently by the order of the 3rd respondent dated 19.05.2005 followed by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.10.2005 and ultimately by the first respondent in G.O.(2D)No.321 dated 18.05.2006 and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

2. The petitioner while working as Police Constable in Nemili Police Station was issued a charge memo by the Superintendent of Police, Vellore, namely the 5th respondent dated 13.05.2004 stating that the petitioner has not attended duty for more than 21 days without prior permission from the higher authorities. In respect of the said charge considering the defense of the petitioner who had stated that he was suffering from heart ailments and therefore he has become unconscious and directed one of his relatives to communicate the same to the higher authorities, who had not done the same and he was not mentally well and therefore requesting for taking lenient view, the Enquiry Officer found that if really he was not well he should have proof for having treatment and sent the same to the higher authorities. The medical report submitted by the petitioner on 19.04.2004 shows that it was submitted much after the disciplinary proceedings initiated, which cannot be accepted and has found the said charge against the petitioner as proved. The Deputy Superintendent of Police being the Enquiry Officer, submitted his report to the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent accepting the same, based on the enquiry report forwarded a copy of the same by undated letter of May 2004 but signed on 24.05.2004 calling for any representation in respect of the enquiry report within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said memo.

3. Thereafter, the 5th respondent by the impugned order dated 07.06.2006 has passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police namely the 4th respondent who by an order dated 12.07.2004, while conforming punishment, modified the punishment as that of compulsory retirement. Again aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the review petition before the Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, viz., the third respondent who on 18.10.2004 by the order dated 19.05.2005, relying upon the fact that the Enquiry Officer has held that the charges are proved and therefore, the review petition was rejected. It was as against the order of the third respondent, the petitioner has approached the second respondent by way of mercy petition dated 27.06.2005, who by his order dated 22.10.2005 has also rejected the same. Ultimately, the petitioner has filed a petition to the first respondent-the Government on 30.11.2005 and the Government has passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2006 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and in the circumstances the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging all the orders of punishment on various grounds including that the order of punishment of dismissal was passed by the 5th respondent without even waiting