Madras High Court
R.Srimurugan vs ) The Principal Secretary To The ... on 14 November, 2018
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.P.(MD)No.22740 of 2018
R.Srimurugan,
Grade II Police 1204,
D1, Thallakulam (L & O) Police Station,
Madurai City. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1) The Principal Secretary to the Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2) The Director General of Police,
No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
3) The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.
4) The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Armed Reserve,
Madurai City, Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order
in G.O.(D) No.924, Home (Police – VI) Department, dated 02.08.2018 and
quash the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram
For Respondents : Mr.A Muthukaruppan,
Additional Government Pleader
***
ORDER
The petitioner herein, is Grade II Police Constable. In the year 2011, he was admitted in the hospital. Initially, he took medical leave for 19 days from 03.04.2014 to 22.04.2014. Thereafter, he extended the leave without intimation. After 56 days of his absence, he reported duty. Considering the Medical Board's report, he was taken into service and for unauthorised absence, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him. For his unauthorised absence, he was imposed increment cut for one year with cumulative effect.
2. Appeal was preferred against that order before the third respondent, who confirmed the same. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed a mercy petition before the first respondent to reconsider the order of punishment imposed on him. The first respondent herein vide order dated 02.08.2018 has declined to entertain the mercy petition. The said order is now impugned before this Court on the ground that the first respondent has not given him an opportunity to put forth his case and his http://www.judis.nic.in 3 unauthorised absence was due to head injury sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that due to the postponement of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, his future prospect of getting promotion is affected which is not being considered on humanitarian basis by the first respondent.
3. This Court after going through the averments made in the affidavit and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order, finds that, adequate opportunities were given to the petitioner to put forth his case and only after being satisfied that the petitioner herein has abstained himself without notice, punishment has been imposed on him and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The first respondent has shown due diligence and mercy in entertaining the petition and in considering whether mercy can be shown for the petitioner herein. However, the service record of the petitioner are so unimpressive disclosing that he is a habitual deserter of duty. Hence, the request of the petitioner has been rejected. The reasoning given by the first respondent is extracted below which is self explanatory.
“3) The Government have examined the petitioner of Thiru.R.Sri Murugan, Police Constable 1204, Armed Reserve, Madurai City carefully and independently along with the connected records. The delinquent had gone on medical leave and he had not initiated any steps to inform about his http://www.judis.nic.in 4 leave to his higher officials, he is a habitual deserter of duty. He has accumulated 17 defaults out of which 15 defaults were for unauthorised absence and availing medical leave without proper procedure. He had failed to mend his habit and committed the same mistake. He has not submitted his written statement of defence which shows his act of negligence. Moreover, he is a chronic absentee and the said punishment is reasonable and commensurate with the delinquency committed by him. Hence, the government have decided to reject the petition of the delinquent. Thiru.R.Sri Murugan, Police Constable 1204, Armed Reserve, Madurai City.”
4. The impugned order is reasonable and does not bristle with any infirmity for the Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
14.11.2018 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No sts To
1) The Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
2) The Director General of Police, No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
3) The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
4) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Madurai City, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.JAYACHANDRAN,J., sts Order in W.P.(MD)No.22740 of 2018 14.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in