The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the proved charges, and the court will interfere only if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent in PR No.02/2000(1)/03 dated 14.6.2000 and by the 4th respondent Na.Ka.No.A2/AP.45/2000 dated 01.9.2000 and by the 3rd respondent in RC.No.Estt.I(2)/15034/IG/2000 dated 21.11.2000 and by the 2nd respondent in C.No.158392/ AP.1(3)/2001 dated 18.1.2002 and by the 1st respondent in G.O.(2D) No.153 dated 06.5.2005 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.)

1. The order of removal from service is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was recruited as Grade-II Police Constable on 15.04.1997. The petitioner states that he was serving as Police Constable in Madurai 6th Battalion, “B” company (Armed Police) and deputed to attend the Sports coach at Avadi 2nd Battalion. The petitioner availed 10 days Casual Leave from 05.12.1999 to 14.12.1999 in order to take care of his aged mother. Due to family circumstances as his mother was suffering from ill-health, the petitioner was not in a position to report for duty in time, the respondents issued an order to report for duty and the said order was served on 22.12.1999. The petitioner was unable to report for duty as his mother was suffering from mental depression and her health got worse and he had taken her mother for further treatment to the hospital. Due to the said circumstances, the petitioner could not able to inform the reason and report for duty. However, the petitioner was declared as a Deserter from 22.12.1999 onwards. The 5th respondent issued a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with the said explanation, the Department appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges are proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of removal from service for the unauthorized absence. The petitioner preferred a Review Petition before the third respondent and the said petition as also rejected on 21.11.2000. The petitioner further preferred a petition to the 2nd respondent on 12.06.2001, which was also rejected on 18.1.2002. Finally, the petitioner approached the Government by way of a Mercy Petition and the petitioner could not able to get any remedy and thus, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly contended that the major penalty of removal from service is disproportionate with the gravity of the allegations. There was no proper application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority, while imposing the major penalty of removal from service. The order of punishment is non-speaking in nature and therefore, it is to be set aside. The petitioner raised several grounds and the reasons for not reporting for duty during the relevant point of time and those explanations were not considered by the competent authority, while passing the impugned order of removal from service.

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner could not report for duty immediately on receipt of the order from the 5th respondent due to his mother's health condition. However, the petitioner has explained the reasons for his absence and without considering any of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner was declared as Deserter and even in the impugned order of removal from service, the merits raised in this regard has not been considered by the authorities.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.15 of 2011, wherein a 7 times Deserter has been reinstated pursuant to the orders of the Court. The punishment of removal