Madras High Court· 08 September 2026

Does a circular permitting reconsideration of a first time deserter apply where the deserter did not report within sixty days?

The Director General of Police v. G. Aravindhan

WA.513/2024 · 2026:MHC:3808 · W.A.NO.513 OF 2024
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice Krishnaswamy Govindarajan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow r.3(b) Tamil Nadu Police Subordi…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

A circular permitting reconsideration of a first time deserter does not apply where the deserter did not report within sixty days.

No. A circular permitting reconsideration of a first time deserter does not apply where the deserter did not report within sixty days. The circular was confined to a first time deserter who reported before the Superintendent within sixty days, and such a lenient view had already been taken on earlier occasions.

Headnote

Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 — r.3(b) — Letters Patent — Clause 15 — Desertion — Removal from service — Scope of judicial review — Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 — r.3(b) — Uniformed force — Lenient view undesirable — Held: Interference by taking a lenient view on misplaced sympathy in matters of discipline in a uniformed force is not desirable and falls beyond the realm of judicial review. (¶10) Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 — r.3(b) — Habitual desertion — Removal justified — Held further: Habitual desertion within a short span of service excludes any lenient view, since the morale and discipline of the force would otherwise be paralyzed. (¶9, 11) Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 — Circular — First time deserter only — Held further: A circular permitting reconsideration of a first time deserter does not apply where the deserter did not report within sixty days. Writ appeal allowed. (¶2, 11)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 2The 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.

Paragraph 9The 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.

Acts & Sections

r.3(b) Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The Director General of Police v. G. Aravindhan — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is interference by taking a lenient view on misplaced sympathy in matters of discipline in a uniformed force desirable?Does habitual desertion within a short span of service exclude any lenient view on the punishment of removal from service?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections