The punishment imposed should be proportionate to the charges, and desertion cases should be dealt with after giving an opportunity. The court also recommended the appointment of a commission to study and analyze the causative factors of indiscipline, including desertion, in the police force and to suggest measures for prevention and improvement of morale.

ORDER

" 2,53,798 persons have applied for 13,320 constable posts ".

The above is the news publication about the constable selection. The candidates are required to 1) undergo written examination successfully; 2) to have minimum prescribed physical fitness; 3) undergo Medical test; 4) and undergo Training for 9 months. After going through the above procedures only, the constables would be appointed. One will be surprised to know some of the police personnel run away from their duty and they are declared as "DESERTORS".

Some of such deserters challenged their dismissal from service in these writ petitions.

W.P.No.93 of 2008

1. The petitioner, who was declared as a "Deserter" and removed subsequently from service is before this Court, challenging the removal order as confirmed by the appellate authority.

2. The petitioner was serving as Railway Police. As he was indisposed on 03.11.1998 A.N., he could not report to the duty thereafter. Since the petitioner absented himself for more than 21 days, the Superintendent of Police, declared the petitioner as a deserter from 3.11.1998, by proceedings dated 27.11.1998. However, the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 59th day and he was taken back to the service on 31.12.1998. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued on 5.3.1999. Based on the enquiry report dated 24.5.1999, the petitioner was removed from service on 20.7.2006. Against the said order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 24.7.2006 which was dismissed by order dated 12.8.2006.

3. The said orders were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.27930 of 2006 and this Court by order dated 4.1.2007 set aside the orders and remanded the case to the first respondent for deciding about the proposed punishment. In the appeal against the said Writ order preferred by the respondent, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19.9.2007 in W.A.No.668 of 2007, directed the first respondent herein and the first appellant therein to pass fresh orders following Rule 6 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. After the remand, again the second respondent confirmed the dismissal order passed by the punishing authority. The said order is now challenged before this Court.

4. Mr. S.Ilamvaludhi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following submissions:

(a) As per the Police Standing Order 95, if the desertor reports to the duty, he is entitled to join the service and no major punishment could be inflicted upon the petitioner.

(b) As per the circular memorandum dated 5.12.1990 issued by the Commissioner of Police all deserters should be proceeded under Rule 3(a) of the Tamillnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for 'unauthorised absence from duty'. If Rule 3(a) is invoked, the order of dismissal is unwarranted.

(c) The second respondent, appellate authority, without application of mind, even after the remand order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, merely confirmed the order passed by the punishing authority without any discussion.

(d) The enquiry report was filed on 24.5.1999, whereas removal order was passed after a lapse of seven years on 20.7.2006 and there was no explanation from the respondent why such a delay was caused.

5. He relied upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NARINDER MOHAN ARYA VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713, and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M.S.Narayanan Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Branch) represented by its Registrar High Court Buildings, Chennai and Others reported in (2008) 6 MLJ 863 and the order of the First Bench of this Court passed on 27.1.2011 in W.A.No.58 of 2011 in R.Ramesh Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kancheepuram Range, Kancheepuram and another wherein, in similar circumstances, the punishment of dismissal from service was found to be disproportionate to the charges levelled against