Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, A.D. MARIA CLETE, JJ.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Kamalakannan, S/o. Rama Gounder – Respondent
W.A. No. 1059 of 2023 and C.M.P. No. 10600 of 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2025
For the Appellants :Mr. P. Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Venkateswaran, Special Government Pleader.
For the Respondent: Mr. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Muthappan.
Disciplinary actions in police service must be proportionate to misconduct, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining discipline and addressing habitual offenses with appropriate penalties.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - The court considered issues surrounding disciplinary action against a police constable due to multiple instances of unauthorized absence. The learned Single Judge quashed the compulsory retirement order and directed reinstatement, adjudging the punishment disproportionate. (Paras 6-9, 12, 13, 18, 30)
(B) Proportionality of Punishment - The principle that disciplinary action should be proportional to misconduct was emphasized, with consideration of the police service's need for discipline. The court found it critical to ensure that a history of repeated misconduct warrants strict consequences. (Paras 14-30)
(C) Legal Precedents - The judgment referenced various Supreme Court rulings that stress the importance of maintaining discipline within police services and reiterated that leniency should not be extended to habitual offenders. (Paras 15-30)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a police constable, was dismissed for unauthorized absences, showing a pattern of 6 desertions within four years. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment post a formal inquiry but faced a subsequent challenge from the respondent, resulting in a decision that reinstated him without back wages. (Paras 3-9)
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the previous assessed penalty disproportionate under the circumstances and ruled for reinstatement while abolishing the compulsory retirement. (Paras 12, 30)
Issues: Whether previous instances of desertion justified compulsory retirement and if the learned Single Judge's decision to interfere with disciplinary authority’s punishment was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature of police work demands strict adherence to duty, asserting that habitual absences cannot be dismissed lightly. Further, it determined that disciplinary actions require judicious review to ensure they align with legal standards and precedents. (Paras 14-30)
Result: Writ Appeal allowed; order quashing compulsory retirement was reversed, and the writ petition was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of respondent's service and misconduct (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. respondent's appeal against severe penalties (Para 12 , 14) |
| 3. court's reluctance to interfere with past precedents (Para 13) |
| 4. comparison of legal precedents and their contexts (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. court’s reasoning on maintaining disciplinary integrity (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. final order and dismissal of the writ petition (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT :
(A.D. Maria clete, J)
Heard.
2.This writ appeal is preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu and three other officials of the Police Department, assailing the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 14901 of 2014. By the said order, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashed the order of compulsory retirement dated 01.04.2014. The learned Judge further directed that the respondent be reinstated in service with effect from the date of the original punishment order dated 26.03.1999, and be treated as if he had not been dismissed from service, with continuity of service and all attendant benefits. However, it was clarified that the respondent shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period of non-employment. The said direction was to be complied with within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
3.The records reveal that the respondent was initially appointed as Grade II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police, Second Battalion, Avadi, on 16.03.1994. After completing four years of service, he was transferred to the Armed Reserve, Chennai City, on 03.08.1998. During his tenure in the Tamil Nadu Special Police, the respondent had deserted duty on five separate occasions. However, on each of those instances, he was shown leniency and was reinstated in service with the imposition of only minor penalties. Following his transfer to the Armed Reserve, Chennai, he again absented himself from duty—this being the sixth instance of desertion within a span of five years.
4.The respondent failed to report for duty with effect from 18.07.1998 and remained absent without any prior permission or intimation. Though the respondent contended that he had submitted a medical leave application through registered post, which was allegedly refused by the appellants, there is no material to substantiate this claim. His unauthorised absence was treated as desertion from duty, and a charge memo dated 24.11.1998 was issued to him. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry minutes were recorded on 06.01.1999. Thereafter, remarks were invited from the respondent on 14.01.1999. Subsequently, by order dated 26.03.1999, the respondent was removed from service with effect from the date of his desertion. The first appellant, being the competent disciplinary authority, passed the following order: –
“Two witness have been examined and three exhibits have been filed on behalf of prosecution. The very fact that no explanation was given by the delinquent amounts to admission of delinquency. The charge is proved on the strength of documentary evidence. I, therefor, concur with the proved minute drawn by the Enquiry Officer and thereby awarded the punishment of removal from the date of desertion.”
5.The respondent preferred an appeal dated 01.06.1999 before the second appellant challenging the order of removal from service. The appeal was considered and ultimately dismissed. In paragraph 3 of the appellate order dated 17.06.1999, the second appellant assigned the following reasons for rejecting the appeal:—
“The appellant has not put forth any convincing reason in his appeal. From the perusal of the PR file together with the connected records it has been clearly proved beyond any shadow of doubt that he deserted the force without any prior intimation or leave sanction from the competent authority. Within just 5 years of service he has earned 5 punishments to his credit (except
