Madras High Court
C. Ravi vs The Director General Of Police on 21 September, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.(MD) Nos. 19633 and 2502 of 2016
W.P.(MD) No. 19633 of 2016
C. Ravi ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P(MD).No.19633 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned proceedings of the 1 st
respondent in his proceedings in Rc.No.126723/AP.1(2)/2013, dated
15.11.2014 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in his proceeding
in C.No.F3/PR.No.30/2012 /D.O.No.921/2012 dated 06.10.2012 and
quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to give
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
suitable promotion to the petitioner with all attendant benefits.
W.P.(MD) No. 2502 of 2016
C. Ravi ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police VI) Department,
Fort. St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P(MD).No.2502 of 2016 : Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned proceedings of the 1 st
respondent in his proceedings in G.O(2D).No.135 dated 09.04.2015
confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in his proceeding in Rc.No.
164836/AP.1(2)/2008, dated 17.09.2008, by modifying the punishment
order of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in PR.No.119 of 2003
dated 24.04.2004 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd
respondent to give suitable promotion to the petitioner with all attendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
benefits.
For Petitioner
in both W.Ps. : M/s. L. Victoria Gowri
For Respondents : Mr. M. Lingadurai
in both WPs Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No. 19633 of 2016 is filed to
call for the records of the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in
his proceedings in Rc.No.126723/AP.1(2)/2013, dated 15.11.2014
confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in his proceeding in
C.No.F3/PR.No.30/2012 /D.O.No.921/2012, dated 06.10.2012 and to
quash the same and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to give
suitable promotion to the petitioner with all attendant benefits.
2. The Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No. 2502 of 2016 is filed
to call for the records of the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent
in his proceedings in G.O(2D).No.135, dated 09.04.2015 confirming the
order of the 2nd respondent in his proceeding in Rc.No.164836/AP.
1(2)/2008, dated 17.09.2008, by modifying the punishment order of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3rd respondent in his proceedings in PR.No.119 of 2003 dated 24.04.2004
and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to
give suitable promotion to the petitioner with all attendant benefits.
3. Heard Ms. L. Victoria Gowri, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. M. Linga Durai, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents.
4. The petitioner joined in the respondent Department on
16.12.1998 as a Grade-II Police Constable in the Ramanathapuram
Special Reserve Police. While he was on duty in the Ramanathapuram
Reserve Police, a Charge memo was issued to the petitioner on
27.11.2003 alleging that without getting permission from the higher
officials and without getting sick passport, he left the office on
02.06.2003 and submitted a leave after getting a medical certificate. It is
admitted that the petitioner submitted a medical certificate and medical
leave was granted by the authorities. But the period of leave was to be
treated as one on loss of pay. The charge memo issued on 27.11.2003
was proceeded further. Though the petitioner states that an explanation
was submitted on 09.01.2004, the petitioner's explanation is cryptic. No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
explanation was offered by petitioner before the Enquiry Officer.
5. The fourth respondent was appointed as an Enquiry
Officer and an exparte enquiry was conducted. Before the Enquiry
Officer 17 documents were filed and two witnesses were examined to
prove the charges. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner without
prior permission left the office without sick passport and hence, the
charge is proved. On the basis of Enquiry Report, further explanation
was sought for from the petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent
imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two
years to be spent on duty and the period of postponement shall not affect
his future increment. The order of third respondent, dated 29.04.2004
was challenged by the petitioner by filing a mercy petition to the second
respondent. The second respondent modified the punishment imposed
by the third respondent considering his length of service with
unblemished record into “postponement of increment for one year which
shall not postpone his future increment”. Again, the petitioner preferred
a mercy petition to the first respondent on 24.12.2013 and the same was
rejected by the first respondent vide order dated 09.04.2015.
Challenging the order of first respondent confirming the order of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
second respondent, the Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No.2502 of 2016 has
been filed.
6. In the second case in W.P(MD).No. 19633 of 2016, the
petitioner has challenged the order or punishment in continuation of a
subsequent charge memo dated 18.04.2012 alleging similar misconduct,
which was said to have been committed by the petitioner earlier in June
2003. The petitioner was asked to report duty on 05.03.2012, after
assigning bandobust duty in relation to Mandaikadu Baghavthi Amman
Koil Temple festival. This time also he left the place of duty without any
intimation but submitted a medical certificate for 15 days to the
Department. The petitioner left the place of duty without giving sick
passport or permission. Hence, a similar charge was framed which
resulted in the punishment of postponement of increment for three years
with cumulative effect. It was found that the petitioner in guilty of
charges as he failed to report duty from 06.03.2012, but submitted
medical leave for 15 days without following the procedure. The mercy
petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected. Challenging the order
passed by the first respondent dated 15.11.2014 confirming the order of
punishment, the petitioner filed second Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
19633 of 2016.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner had valid reason for leaving the place of
duty without obtaining prior permission as he was suffering from peptic
ulcer and that he submitted a medical certificate to his superior justifying
his unauthorised absence. It was further submitted that the petitioner
was taking treatment as inpatient for a few days and that therefore, it is a
proof that the petitioner suffered from illness. Since the petitioner did
not expect his sudden illness, counsel further submitted that the
respondents ought to have considered the case more sympathetically,
especially, when the leave application submitted by the petitioner was
granted without any condition. Learned counsel submitted that the
petitioner filed sufficient materials to prove his innocence and that the
punishment imposed is not commensurate to the charges framed against
the petitioner. Since the petitioner suffered from unbearable stomach
pain as well as stomach disorder, the respondents ought not to have
awarded punishment which would affect the petitioner's future
promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the
petitioner was not granted salary for the period of leave and that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
therefore, the punishment now imposed is unwarranted and it is legally
unsustainable.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
shows that even now, the petitioner is under the impression that he did
not commit any offence or misconduct. Since his absence from duty was
due to health issues and the respondents have passed the impugned
orders, affecting his service condition as well as monetary benefits in an
unjust and arbitrary manner. The learned counsel also relied on an un-
reported Judgment of this Court dated 23.08.2021 made in W.P.No.1645
of 2007 (P. Murugesan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu).
9. A Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents
in both the cases. The facts are almost identical, except the dates, the
nature of misconduct as found in the charge memo are identical and the
respondents have noticed that the petitioner has started repeating the
same mis-conduct. During the second time, the petitioner submitted a
medical certificate for his unauthorised absence for a period over 15
days. It is admitted that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner
was initiated under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Rules (Discipline and Appeal), 1955, for the second time when he was
assigned the same duty to give Bandobust during Mandaikadu
Baghavathi Amman Kovil Temple Festival on 06.03.2012. The
petitioner did not attend duty, without getting prior permission or
without submitting any sick passport. The only explanation offered by
the petitioner in both the occasion is that the petitioner was suffering
from peptic ulcer or some other illness. The conduct of petitioner in
submitting the leave application along with the medical certificate for 15
days reveals that attitude of petitioner. When the findings of the Enquiry
Officer and disciplinary authority showing that the charge against the
petitioner were held proved based on facts and evidence produced during
enquiry, this Court may not interfere unless the enquiry and order of
disciplinary authority are perverse.
10. The only issue that was argued much before this Court
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's
punishment is not commensurate with the charge alleged against the
petitioner. From the conduct of the petitioner in the year 2003 and 2012,
it is seen that the petitioner had withdrawn himself from duty under the
pretext of physical ailments. On the first occasion, stomach pain and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Peptic Ulcer was stated. On the second occasion it is stated that due to
severe illness the petitioner could not report duty. The allegation against
the petitioner is specific that after reporting for duty on the previous day,
the petitioner was found absent in the morning at 8.00 am while checking
the attendance of the police officials. The petitioner was one among the
40 male Police men and 30 female constables, who are assigned
Bandobust duty in relation to the Mandaikadu Bagavathi Amman Koil
Temple Festival. The mis-conduct alleged is not denied. However, it is
the case of the petitioner that he had valid explanation on both occasions.
The petitioner avoided taking permission or getting sick passport on both
occasions. This is not properly explained.
11. The petitioner did not even participate in the enquiry to
cross examine the witnesses, who are examined by the enquiry officer.
The punishment imposed on the petitioner is only postponement of
increment for a period of one year for the charges that was framed in the
year 2003 and the postponement of increment for three years for the
misconduct committed by the petitioner in the year 2012. Though the
main contention is that the punishment is not commensurate to the
charges against the petitioner, this Court is unable to find any irregularity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
or illegality in the punishment imposed especially when the petitioner
has done the same mistake for the second time.
12. In the Judgment relied upon by the petitioner, it is seen
that the writ petition was filed against the punishment of compulsory
retirement. It was therefore, the unauthorised absence alleged against the
writ petitioner therein was considered so as to remit the matter to
reconsider the punishment. The Court finds in this case that the
punishment is proportionate to the proved misconduct. This Court has
no reason to remit the matter to reduce the punishment or modify the
punishment. When this Court is of the view that the proved charge
against the petitioner is more serious, this Court cannot interfere with
impugned order passed by the respondents. The petitioner did not
participate in the enquiry on both the occasions and no attempt was made
by the petitioner to produce any material to justify his unauthorised
absence on medical grounds without getting sick passport or an
intimation atleast.
13. In the absence of any explanation the attitude of the
petitioner cannot be condoned, particularly, when the petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
attached to the uniform service when discipline is more important. This
court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any special
circumstances to modify the punishment. The petitioner counsel states
that the petitioner has rendered a meritorious service and it should be
considered sympathetically. For the reasons stated above, this Court
cannot interfere with the punishment imposed by the respondents.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
court has no valid ground or reason to interfere with the impugned
orders challenged in both Writ Petitions. Accordingly, these Writ
Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
21.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
trp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police VI) Department,
Fort. St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.S.SUNDAR,J.,
trp
W.P.(MD) Nos. 19633 and 2502 of 2016
21.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
