The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proportionality of punishment must be carefully considered in disciplinary proceedings, especially in cases involving medical conditions and explanations provided by the employee.

1. The petitioner entered the service as a directly recruited Gr-II Police Constable through selection conducted by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board in May 1999.

2. While so, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (D & A) Rules in PR No.39/2004 dated 26.10.2004 on the following allegations:-

"Highly reprehensible conduct while working as constable in TSP Special Force entered casual leave from 26.06.04 to 30.06.04, extended the casual leave from 1.7.04 to 5.7.04, did not report for duty on 6.7.04 and after completion of leave, in violation of the rules entered medical leave from 6.7.04 to 15.07.04 and did not report for duty thereafter and absented from duty without information, permission or leave for more than 20 days and thus declared as a deserter and did not appear before the Commandant within 60 days from the date of desertion and hence the desertion was confirmed on 30.10.04."

3. The crux of the allegation was that the petitioner absented from duty without permission for more than 20 days and thus, he was declared as a deserter.

4. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. The petitioner submitted a written statement of defence stating that he was on casual leave from 26.06.2004 to 30.06.2004 and due to ill health, he extended the casual leave from 01.07.2004 to 05.07.2004. As his health condition worsened, he took medical leave for 10 days from 06.07.2004 to 16.07.2004. Even thereafter, as he did not recover from his illness, he had asked his parents to submit a letter for medical leave, but due to illiteracy, they did not send the leave application. According to the petitioner, due to compelling circumstances, he could not report for duty. However, the Enquiry Officer without taking into consideration his explanation held that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Based on the same, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of Removal from service by an order dated 01.12.2004 of the first respondent.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition before the second respondent. His review petition was rejected by the second respondent viz., Inspector General of Police, Armed Police, Trichy by order dated 05.07.2005. The petitioner filed a Mercy Petition before the Director General of Police and the same was also dismissed by an order dated 22.10.2005.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11164 of 2006 before this Court questioning the aforesaid orders. The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 22.09.2008 refusing to interfere with the punishment of removal from service.

7. As against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.1608 of 2011. The First Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned single Judge and remitted back the matter to the Inspector General of Police, the second respondent herein to consider the issue regarding the proportionality of the punishment and to pass fresh orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

8. On remand, the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 08.05.2013 stating that the punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to his delinquency and he was rightly punished. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 08.05.2013.

9. The respondents have filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations.

10. The crux of the allegation made in the counter affidavit was that the petitioner deserted the force on three occasions and unauthorisedly absented from duty on three occasions.

11. Heard both sides.

12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order is opposed to the decision of the First Bench of this Court dated 26.02.2013 made in W.A.No.1608 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner herein, wherein, he was the appellant. He submitted that the order dated 26.02.