JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the proceedings issued in D.O.1139/2013 C.No.D2/PR 110/2013 dated 24.12.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent and C.No.B3/Appeal 05/2014 dated 14.02.2014 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.

1. The order of punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed on the writ petitioner by the 2nd respondent, which was confirmed by the 1st respondent in an appeal are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner joined as a Police Constable in the year 1994 and he was promoted to the post of Grade-I Police Constable. The petitioner states that he was forced to apply leave on 29.06.2013, while he was working as Police Constable in Neyveli Town Police Station. The petitioner states that he suffered jaundice and could not able to resume duty immediately. He states that he intimated the same to the Inspector of Police, Neyveli Town Police Station, but the Inspector of Police has not taken into account and thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, issued a memo on 06.11.2013 in PR.No.110 of 2013 under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charges and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and the Superintendent of Police issued an order on 19.08.2013, declaring the writ petitioner as deserter. Thereafter, in proceedings dated 30.08.2013, the order of desertion was confirmed by the Superintendent of Police. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner, asking him to submit the objections, if any, within a period of 7 days. The petitioner had submitted his reply and thereafter, the punishment of compulsory retirement from service was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 24.12.2013. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, who in turn, rejected the appeal in proceedings dated 14.02.2014. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner went on leave on medical grounds. He suffered jaundice during the relevant point of time and therefore, he could not able to report for duty immediately. Though he informed the fact to the Inspector of Police, he has not taken note of the same and thereafter, the charge memo was issued, which resulted in the punishment of compulsory retirement. The Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry properly. He has taken a decision without even considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority also failed to consider the genuinity of the medical grounds placed by the petitioner and therefore, the order of punishment is to be set aside.

4. In respect of the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench dated 19.09.2007 in W.A.No.668 of 2007, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench made an observation as follows:

“8. It is not in dispute that the respondent absented from duty from 03.11.1998 and was permitted to join duty by the Superintendent of Police on the 59th day i.e., on 31.12.1998, after accepting the medical certificate produced by the respondent. The charge against the respondent is unauthorised absence without any leave or permission and deserted the post with effect from 03.11.1998 at 13.00 hours. The past conduct of the respondent even though is mentioned in the counter affidavit, the same is not reflected in the order of dismissal. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the circular issued in the year 1990 alone is applicable to deal with the charge framed in the year 1999 cannot be sustai