Madras High Court
The Additional Chief Secretary To ... vs K.Kannan on 7 July, 2023
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 07.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.13914 of 2023
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Police V) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 4.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Crime and Traffic,
i/c Law and Order, Salem City. .. Appellants
Vs.
K.Kannan
S/o.Krishnasamy .. Respondent
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 04.02.2022 passed by this court in W.P.No.23251 of 2019.
For Appellants : Mr.Stalin Abimanyu
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vijaya Kumar
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]
Challenging the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the learned Judge
in W.P.No.23251 of 2019, the present appeal has been filed by the
appellants / State.
2. The case pleaded by the writ petitioner / respondent herein
before the writ court was that he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the
Police Department in March, 2013, selected through Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission. On 22.05.2014, he applied for casual leave to attend a
family function after getting prior permission from the superiors. However,
a charge memorandum under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (for brevity “TNCS (D & A) Rules”)
was issued to him on 22.05.2014 alleging that he has left the work place
without proper permission and thereafter, he was placed under suspension
and was not allowed to join duty. While so, again on 02.06.2014, he was
issued with another charge memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the TNCS
(D&A) Rules alleging unauthorized absence on 23.05.2014.
3. According to the respondent, on 23.05.2014, he left the office
only for 45 minutes, that too, for ascertaining the 10th Standard result of his
daughter and the penalty proceedings could not be attracted for the said
absence. However, he was issued with an order dated 25.09.2014 dismissing
him from service. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal
before the third appellant and the same was dismissed on 12.11.2014.
Thereafter, he filed a mercy petition before the second appellant and the
same was rejected on 22.07.2016. Subsequently, he filed a review petition
before the first appellant and the same was also rejected on 29.10.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
4. Challenging the orders of rejection and the punishment of
removal from service, the respondent filed WP.No.23251 of 2019, which,
by order dated 04.02.2022, was allowed by the learned Judge observing that
all the authorities have shown lack of sensitivity and appreciation in dealing
with the lapses of the inferior officer and that, the punishment of removal
from service is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct
committed by the respondent herein. The learned Judge further observed
that loss of employment for over seven years itself is a very serious and
harsh consequence for the respondent and that, denying him salary for the
long period of non-employment would be a suitable punishment. Ultimately
observing that the respondent herein is entitled to all other benefits like
notional fixation of pay, continuity of service and other consequential
service benefits as if he had been continued in service without any break,
the learned Judge set aside the orders impugned in the writ petition and
directed the authorities to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith,
however, made it clear that the respondent is not entitled for any salary or
allowances for the period of non-employment. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellants have preferred the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants / State has submitted that the order of punishment can be
interfered only on the limited grounds of palpable illegality, arbitrariness or
mala fides. He further submitted that the respondent has filed the writ
petition only to evade the punishment imposed on him by the Department.
Finally submitting that in the case of departmental proceedings, it would be
only preponderance of probabilities and hence, the charge framed against
the respondent was held to be proved, the learned Government Counsel
prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that the learned Judge has analysed the issue in detail and has passed the
impugned order allowing the claim of the respondent herein and hence the
same does not require any interference by this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
8. A reading of the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers,
would reveal that for a single day absence, ie., on 22.05.2014, the
respondent was served with Charge Memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the
Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It is also seen
that on the next day, ie., on 23.05.2014, he was issued with another Charge
Memorandum. Thereafter, based on the report dated 10.09.2014,
notwithstanding the explanation given by the respondent against his absence
on those particular days, an order of removal from service has been passed
against him. The third appellant/Appellate Authority has also confirmed the
findings of the Disciplinary Authority in the appeal vide proceedings dated
12.11.2014. The mercy petition and the review petition filed by the
respondent before the appellate authorities have also been rejected. It is
seen that unfortunately, all the authorities have rejected the representations
of the respondent without due appreciation atleast on the quantum of the
penalty imposed on him in consideration of the charges framed against him.
According to the counter statement of the authorities, the respondent was
lethargic in his conduct and attitude to work and he lacked devotion to duty.
In the counter affidavit produced before the Writ Court, the authorities have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
given a statement showing the dates on which the respondent had taken
leave without obtaining proper permission. Even though the conduct of the
respondent was not upto the mark as drawn by the superior authorities, the
response by the superior authorities as to the so-called lapse committed on
the part of the respondent herein, can be termed only as disproportionate
reaction. Taking note of the same, the learned Judge has observed that the
punishment of removal from service in the facts and circumstances of the
case, is shockingly disproportionate. It was further observed by the learned
Judge that the reaction of the appellants as could be inferred from the tenor
of the counter affidavit, is more out of anger against the conduct of the
respondent. In the circumstances, in view of the fact that the respondent had
already suffered non-employment for more than 7 years, the learned Judge
has correctly held that denying salary to the respondent for the said period
of non-employment would be a suitable punishment for his lackadaisical
attitude and accordingly, directed the authorities to reinstate the respondent
in service forthwith and to grant him all other benefits like notional fixation
of pay, continuity of service and other consequential service benefits as if he
had been continued in service without any break.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
9. In the given factual matrix, it is no doubt true that the quantum
of punishment imposed on the respondent, is highly disproportionate to the
charge levelled against him. The learned Judge has properly analysed the
issue and has passed the impugned order and hence, the same does not
require any interference in the hands of this Court.
10. In the result, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
07.07.2023
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
nsd
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Police V) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Director General of Police,
Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City.
4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Crime and Traffic,
i/c Law and Order, Salem City.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
nsd
W.A.No.1426 of 2023
07.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
