← Library
Madras High CourtWP/34535/2016disposed of

A.Aswathaman v. The Inspector General Of

2016-10-07Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.10.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition No.34535 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.29761 of 2016 A.Aswathaman ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Inspector General of Police, Tiruvannamalai Range, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District.

... Respondents.

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders issued by the 2nd respondent in Ma.Aa.No. 927/2015 in Na.Ka.No. H.2/P.R 68/2015 dated 16/12/2015 and Na.Ka.No. H.2/P.R 68/2015 dated 24/08/2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant all service and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Dhinesh Kumar For Respondents :

Mr.K.Dhananjayan, Spl. Govt. Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders passed by the second respondent in Ma.Aa.No. 927/2015 in Na.Ka.No. H.2/P.R 68/2015 dated 16.12.2015 and Na.Ka.No. H.2/P.R 68/2015 dated 24.8.2016 and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate him into service and grant all service and monetary benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he directly entered into service as Constable in the year 2006 and posted to serve at Tamil Nadu Special Police Special Force, Veerapuram, Chennai and thereafter, Armed Reserve, Tiruvannamalai, and after, that he was posted at Ponnur Police Station, Vandawasi Taluk, Tiruvannamanalai. While so, since he was suffering from severe jaundice, he could not attend duty. Hence, he was served with a charge memo dated 8.9.2015 on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent for more than 21 days. An enquiry officer was also appointed and the enquiry officer found him guilty and observed that the charges were proved. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.12.2015 to the second respondent.

However, without considering the same, the second respondent issued a non-speaking order of removal from service dated 16.12.2015. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 8.8.2016 to the first respondent and the first respondent has also rejected the said appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The only submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by quashing the impugned orders, a direction could be given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1608 of 2011, dated 26.02.2013, wherein in an identical situation, a Division Bench of this Court, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004(4) SCC 560 (Shri Bhagwan Lalarya Vs.

Commissioner of Police), set aside the dismissal order and remitted back the matter to the respondent therein to consider the issue regarding the proportionality of the punishment and to pass fresh orders. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.58 of 2011 dated 27.1.2011 in the case of R.Ramesh Vs. the Deputy Inspector General of Police and others.

4. The above cited judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the light of the above referred to judgments, I am of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to

the charges levelled against him. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority viz., the second respondent herein to reconsider the same with regard to the quantum of the punishment imposed on the petitioner and to pass fresh orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that in the event the quantum of punishment is reduced, the petitioner shall not claim backwages for the period in which he has not performed his duty. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar sbi To 1.The Inspector General of Police, Tiruvannamalai Range, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District.

1 cc to Mr.R.Dhinesh Kumar, Advocate, Sr. 58092 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 58208 W.P.No.34535 of 2016 KS (CO) kk 25/10