The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishing authority must provide a reasonable opportunity for the government servant to address the grounds on which the proposed action is based, and the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the charge.

Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying to quash the final order of dismissal passed by the 1st Respondent and order of rejection of appeal passed by the 2nd Respondent and to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

2. Petitioner was working as Gr-I constable in B2 -Coimbatore City Police. He has absented from duty on 211. 2001 without any leave or permission and reported for duty on 112. 2001 with medical certificates. For his unauthorized absence from 211. 2001 to 112. 2001, charge memo under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Services Rules (for short T.N.S.P.S.S.Rules) in P.R.No.12/F1/2002 was framed. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Coimbatore City Police was nominated as Enquiry Officer in P.R.No.12/2002. Petitioner had given his explanation to the charge and denied the allegation made against him. Enquiry Officer who conducted enquiry has submitted a proved minute. Copy of the report was served on the Petitioner on 04.05.2002 calling for his further representation. 1st Respondent passed a final order on 17.06.2002 dismissing the Petitioner from service. Petitioner has preferred an appeal to the 2nd Respondent on 18.05.2004. 2nd Respondent considered the appeal and dismissed the same by his order in Rc.No.F3/AP.10/2004 dated 21.06.2004 which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

3. Respondents have filed counter stating that Petitioner was a chronic absentee from work without leave or permission. So the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is in conformity with the delinquency. According to the Respondents, while ordering dismissal of the Petitioner, Respondents have not travelled beyond the charges and the punishment was awarded as per the P.S.O.

4. Challenging the impugned order of dismissal Mr. S. Ravi, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Supreme Court has specifically held that if the past records are taken into consideration while imposing punishment, specific charge should be given about the past records which the charge might take into consideration and the Petitioner has been dismissed from service for other than the given charge and he has been denied a reasonable opportunity and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service is liable to be quashed.

5. Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate (Writ) has submitted that Petitioner has previous punishments for desertion from force is a well known fact to the Petitioner and that he happened to be a repeated absentee from work without leave or permission and the same was rightly taken note of by the Respondents.

6. Charge under Sec.3(b) of T.N.S.P.S.S.Rules were framed against the Petitioner for his absence from 211. 2001 to 112. 2001. While imposing punishment of dismissal from service by the order dated 16. 2002, 1st Respondent had referred to the earlier two punishments and subsequent absentation of the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-

"Further the delinquent Gr.I PC 754 Jayakumar has already been awarded 2 punishments of Black Mark and postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect for the same offence i.e. desertion from 111. 91 and from 210. 2000."

"Even though he was taken for duty on 112. 2001, he has again deserted the force from 15. 2002 and treated as a deserter and now continues to be a deserter till date. This will clearly prove his un-willingness to continue in this disciplinary force."

7. There is nothing in law, which prevents the punishing authority from taking previous record of Government servant into consideration during second stage of the enquiry. For essentially, it relates more to the domain of punishment rather than to that of guilt. But what is essential is that the Government servant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to know that fact and meet the same.

8. Observing that if imposed punishment is based on previous record of Government servant