BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
M.Ramesh - Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police - Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.20664 of 2021
Decided on : 27-01-2025
ORDER :
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Thalaimutharasu, the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr. D.Gandhiraj for the respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 01.03.2009 and was posted with the Tamil Nadu Special Police's 1st Battalion stationed at Trichy. Thereafter, he was transferred from Tamil Nadu Special Police and was posted at the Trichy City Armed Reserve on 10.08.2011. On 08.11.2016, the petitioner was transferred to Nilgiri's Armed Reserve. While the petitioner was attached with the Armed Reserve Unit of Nilgiri's District, he was directed to undergo State Disaster Response Forced Training at Trichy District Armed Reserve and was relieved from the Armed Reserve Nilgiri's at 18 hours with a direction to report for training. The petitioner reported for training at Trichy TN CS Training School on 03.04.2017 at 10 hours. The petitioner was scheduled to fall in line by 6 a.m., for training, but turned up at 6.30 a.m. When the course trainer and the Sub-Inspector questioned the petitioner, it is claimed by the department that the petitioner abused the Sub-Inspector, Kathiresan and behaved disrespectfully.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from training on 11.04.2017 at 7 hours and was sent back with a passport to report duty at the Armed Reserve Nilgiri's Unit. However, instead of reporting duty at Nilgiri's Armed Reserve, the petitioner remained absent without intimating to his superiors. The petitioner on his own volition without following the procedure availed medical leave from 11.04.2017 to 30.05.2017. He further availed medical leave without permission from 12.07.2017 to 10.08.2017 without any authorization. On 08.08.2017, he went to the Trichy Armed Reserved and entered into a wordy quarrel with Sub-Inspector one Mahendran, as a result of which, a First Information Report in Crime No. 628 of 2017 under Sections 294B, 323, 353, 506(1) IPC read with the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act was registered as against the petitioner on 08.08.2017 and was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in Trichy Central Prison from 08.08.2017 to 12.10.2017.
4. In view of the series of the above narrated incidents, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 08.08.2017 afternoon. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Nilgiris conducted a preliminary enquiry. Based on the preliminary enquiry, six charges were framed as against the petitioner under Rule 3B in PR No.3204 of 2017. The enquiry officer concluded all the charges as against the petitioner as proved and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the Superintendent of Police, Nilgiris/third Respondent removed the petitioner from service in his proceedings in H1/PR No. 204/2017 dated 12.01.2018. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the same was considered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, that is, the second respondent and the punishment enforced by the third respondent was confirmed on appeal by the second respondent vide impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No. D2/1411/2018 dated 14.03.2018 against which the petitioner preferred a mercy petition before the Director General of Police/first respondent and the first respondent by impugned proceedings in RC No. 690-196/AP.1(1)/2020 dated 02.03.2020 confirmed the same. Challenging all the three proceedings passed by the third respondent, second respondent and first respondent confirming the removal of the petitioner from service, this writ petition is filed.
5. The charges framed as against the petitioner in brief are as follows:
(i) The petitioner failed to appear for training at 06:00 am. on 11-4-2021 at Tamil Nadu Commando School at Trichy and instead presented himself at the grounds at 6:30 a.m., under the influence of alcohol.
(ii) The petitioner availed medic
Acquittal in a criminal case does not bar disciplinary action if misconduct is established on a preponderance of probabilities.
Disciplinary punishment must be proportionate to the offense, and dismissal for unauthorized absence is excessive compared to lesser disciplinary actions.
Disciplinary authority's decision upheld unless found arbitrary; the punishment of removal was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct of desertion.
The court overturned the removal of service, finding the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, violating the principles of natural justice and the proportionality standar....
Unauthorized absence without compelling circumstances and habitual absenteeism can lead to disciplinary action, and the lack of devotion to duty can justify the punishment of removal from service.
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.
Sub-Section (2) of Section 145 of 'the Act' speaks about withdrawal from duty in contravention of Section 29 of 'the Act'. Section 29 of 'the Act' provides that no Police Officer shall withdraw himse....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.