Is interference by taking a lenient view on misplaced sympathy in matters of discipline in a uniformed force desirable?

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) The present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been instituted by the Director General of Police challenging the writ order dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.32578 of 2019. The respondent filed writ petition challenging the order of removal from service and for consequential relief to reinstate him in service with all service benefits.

The facts in brief are that the respondent was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 18.02.2013. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated in PR 20/2017 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The charge against the respondent is that he deserted the Police Force and remained unauthorisedly absent for more than 21 days. That apart, he had not reported before the Superintendent of Police within a period of 60 days as per the Circular issued by the Director General of Police on 06.12.2007 so as to reconsider his case. Thus, the charge memo was proceeded with the enquiry and the respondent participated in the process of enquiry. The explanation submitted by the respondent was that his mother met with an accident and in order to provide treatment to his mother, he went to his native and was not in a position to inform about his absence to the higher authorities.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Mr.K.Raja would submit that on account of compelling circumstances, the respondent remained unauthorisedly absent. Thus, the Authorities ought to have considered his case and a lenient view has to be taken. Mr.K.Raja would further contend that as per the Circular, the punishment of removal from service ought not to have issued. That apart, in similar circumstances, the Courts have also considered and granted the relief of reinstatement in certain cases.

Ms.R.K.Sekina Reshma, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the respondent is a habitual person, who has committed several acts of misconduct. She would further submit that on more than one occasion, he was declared as a deserter and beyond that, he was also involved in other misconducts and the Department imposed punishments. The respondent remained as a deserter on four occasions and the Authorities imposed punishment. Since he was a habitual deserter remained unauthorisedly absent, within a short span of service, the Authorities finally imposed the punishment of removal from service. The Circular relied upon by the respondent has no application to the present case, since the respondent had failed to report for duty before the Superintendent of Police within a period of 60 days.

This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis on hand.

In the present case, a charge memo was issued and a departmental enquiry was conducted by affording opportunity to the respondent. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge relating to desertion was proved. Thus, the Authority finally imposed the punishment of removal from service.

Question arises whether any lenient view is possible in the context of the facts in the present case. On earlier occasions, the respondent, within a short span of four years of service, committed the misconduct of desertion, on four occasions. The Competent Authority took a lenient view and imposed lesser punishment than that of the major penalty of removal from service. The details of the earlier punishment are as under: Sl.No. Proceedings No. Nature of Punishment 1 PR No.29/2014 Postponement of next increment for one year without cumulative effect, on 01.12.2024 for desertion 2 PR No.22/2015 Reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year and the period of reduction shall operate to postpone his future increment on 29.01.2016 for desertion from 17.04.2015 On suo-motu review, the punishment was modified into that of postponement of next increment for one year without cumulative effect. 3 PR No.03/2016 Postponement of next increments for two years with cumulative effect on 17.05.2016 for his confirmed desertion from 14.11.2015. On suo-motu review, the punishment was modified into that of postponement of next increment for one year with cumulative effect. 4 PR No.04/2017 Postponement of next increments for three years with cumulative effect on: 12.04.2017 for his confirmed desertion from 14.11.2016 5 PR No.20/2017 Removal from service on 15.11.2017 for absenting himself for duty without any information for more than 60 days (Confirmed Desertion) from 06.05.2017.

Since no lenient view was possible in the case of the respondent, the Authorities have finally framed charge under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and conducted a domestic enquiry and based on the proved charges, imposed the punishment of removal from service.

The respondent was serving in the Armed Police. The Police Force is a disciplined force and habitual misconduct of desertion, would undoubtedly cause inconvenience to the Police Force and would result in indiscipline within the force. In the event of taking any lenient view, the morale and discipline of the Police Force would be paralyzed. Even then, the Director General of Police has issued a Circular that a first time deserter may be considered, provided he reported for duty before the Superintendent of Police within 60 days. In the present case, such a lenient view was taken on earlier occasions and on four occasions, the respondent remained unauthorisedly absent and declared as a deserter and punishments were imposed.

The Courts taking a lenient view in matters relating to discipline amongst police personnel serving in Uniformed Force is not desirable. It would fall beyond the realm of the powers of the judicial review. In the event of taking any such lenient view, it will result in a bad precedent. It is mandated on the Police Officials to ensure that utmost discipline and integrity are being maintained in Uniformed Services for better performances of the public duties. Therefore, interference by taking a lenient view on misplaced sympathy would cause demoralization amongst the personnel of the Uniformed Forces. In fact, such a lenient view had been adopted in cases where the reasons are genuine and convincible before the Competent Authority.

In the present case, the respondent has committed desertion on four occasions and that being the factum, there is no reason to take any lenient view. Consequently, the writ order impugned dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.32578 of 2019 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.] 08.09.2026