IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.11.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

W.A.No.3611 of 2025

1. The Director General of Police

Law and Order, Chennai – 600 040.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Tiruchirapalli Range, I/c. Thanjavur Range

Tiruchirapalli.

3. The Superintendent of Police

District Police Office, Thanjavur. .. Appellants

Vs.

T.Duraimanikkam .. Respondent

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against

the order dated 07.11.2023 made in W.P.No.11816 of 2015.

For the Appellants : Mr.P.Kumaresan

Additional Advocate General

assisted by Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh

Special Government Pleader

For the Respondent : Mr.A.Kumar

for Mr.K.J.Sivakumar

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

The present intra-Court appeal has been directed against the

order passed by the Writ Court dated 07.11.2023 made in

W.P.No.11816 of 2015.

2. The respondent was the writ petitioner, who was working as Junior Assistant at the appellant Department, against whom, a charge memo has been issued under Rule 17b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The sum and substance of the charge was that, he had been unauthorizedly absent for 42 days, that is from 11.04.2011 to 22.05.2011.

3. An enquiry has been conducted, where, the stand taken by the respondent/writ petitioner was that, due to illness, he could not attend duty and while he returned on 20.06.2011, he had given a medical certificate, which, though had been given, the same was not accepted and Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated, where, the delinquent also had conceded that he has been absent for 42 days and he has made a request to the employer to take a lenient view while imposing the punishment against the respondent/writ petitioner/employee.

4. Despite the said factors, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. That was under challenge before the Writ Court. In fact, the order of punishment was dated 22.10.2014, which was under challenge in the writ petition filed in the year 2015 and the said writ petition was pending before this Court for eight years and was disposed on 07.11.2023 through the impugned order.

5. The learned Writ Court, having considered the nature of the charge and also the stand that has been taken by the employee to state that he had though given a medical certificate, it was not accepted, if the medical certificate would have been accepted, there would be no charge against him. Assuming it is not accepted and if it is rejected by the employer, even then, for the 42 days' absence, if it is an admitted one, the punishment now awarded, that is compulsory retirement, would be a shocking punishment, disproportionate to the proven charge, that is the admitted charge. Therefore, to that extent, when his plea was made to the employer, the same since has not been considered, the learned Judge has shown his indulgence by setting aside the order and remitted the matter back to the employer to reconsider the issue for awarding an alternate minor punishment against him.

6. As against the said order, since this appeal has been filed and in support of this appeal, though arguments were advanced by Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, we are not impressed with the said arguments made by him for the simple reason that, the only nature of the charge is the unauthorized absence on the part of the employee for 42 days, for which, though medical certificate has been produced, that was not accepted. Had the medical certificate been accepted, there would have not been any charge against him. Assuming the medical certificate has not been accepted and the 42 days has been treated as unauthorized absence, even for which, when it has been accepted by the delinquent and when he made a plea for a lenient punishment, at least, that should have been considered.

7. This position, ha