Disciplinary authority's decision upheld unless found arbitrary; the punishment of removal was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct of desertion.

ORDER :

M.Jothiraman, J.

Under assail is the order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Commandant, TSP VI Battalion, Madurai and the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Inspector General of Police and consequential order dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Director General of Police imposing punishment of removal from service.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigadier in Tamil Nadu Police Department on 13.02.2014. He worked in Paravakottai Police Station, Thiruvarur District. He was promoted as Constable II Grade and underwent training at Thanjore, Police Recruitment School on 25.02.2016. At the time of training, his father met with an accident and he wanted to she his father. But the second respondent has not granted leave and instructed him to continue the training. Hence, he left the training camp without any instruction or any previous sanction. Since he left the camp without any instruction, he got scared and mentally depressed. He was admitted in J.M.H Clininc A centre for Mental Health Care for health care from 26.03.2016 to 26.03.2017. The second respondent issued charge memo dated 19.07.2017. As he left the training camp without any permission or instruction and absent for more than 21 days, the second respondent vide order dated 21.04.2016 has passed an order of Vitoduthal. As per order, he has to present before the second respondent within 60 days. But without knowing these details, the petitioner underwent medication and did not appear before the second respondent. The second respondent as per Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, initiated disciplinary action and charge memo was issued on 19.07.2016. He had attended oral enquiry on 21.09.2017, 25.09.2017, 02.10.2017 and 09.10.2017 and also made his submissions. After the enquiry, the second respondent passed an order of removal from service vide his order dated 07.11.2017. He sent representation to the first respondent. Thereafter, he preferred a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12303 of 2018 and this Court by its order dated 11.06.2018 directed the respondents to consider the appeal petition submitted by the petitioner. He has submitted appeal petition on 23.10.2018 as per order of this Court before the first respondent. The appeal also rejected without proper enquiry. Hence, this petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner left the training camp is not willful nor wanton, but only due to act of the superiors who denied leave for the petitioner to look after his father, who met with a grave accident is arbitrary and illegal. He would submit that rejection of appeal for the same reason previously expressed for the earlier suo motu appeal is highly arbitrary and illegal. To strengthen his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 2458 in a case of Jagdish Singh Vs Punjab Engineering College & Others to show that the proportionality of punishment and logical reasoning emanating from legal findings. He would submit that the petitioner left the training camp without any previous sanction only in order to see his father to assist him for treatment and he had good track record from the date of joining of service.

4.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is not proportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled and proved against the petitioner. He would submit that