Madras High Court· 08 September 2026
Does habitual desertion within a short span of service exclude any lenient view on the punishment of removal from service?
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
Answer
Habitual desertion within a short span of service excludes any lenient view on the punishment of removal from service.
Yes. Habitual desertion within a short span of service excludes any lenient view on the punishment of removal from service. A lenient view had already been taken on four earlier occasions with lesser punishments, and the morale and discipline of the force would be paralyzed by a further lenient view.
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 accountIn the Court's own words
Paragraph 7Question 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.
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, 1955One 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 accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →