Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed by a police officer challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Director General of Police, which modified an earlier order of removal from service. The petitioner was a police constable who was charged by the Superintendent of Police for continuous absence of 21 days from 18.09.2013. After the petitioner failed to appear before the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent of Police was ordered to conduct an enquiry. The Deputy Superintendent conducted an oral enquiry without issuing any notice to the petitioner and submitted a report in P.R.No.27/2014 dated 24.07.2015. Based on that report, the Superintendent of Police passed an order of removal from service with effect from 26.08.2015. The petitioner preferred appeals on 01.02.2018 and 15.02.2018, which were treated as mercy petitions. The Director General of Police, by order dated 22.08.2018 in R.C.No.091092/AP.2(3)/2018, modified the punishment to compulsory retirement from the date of the original order. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders and direct a fresh enquiry. The petitioner contended that the enquiry was conducted ex parte without notice, in violation of natural justice, and thus he was entitled to participate in the departmental proceedings. The respondents argued that the petitioner had not submitted his explanation to either the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority despite being given opportunities, and that the first respondent had carefully considered the matter before modifying the punishment. The judgment text provided does not contain the court's analysis or final decision, as it ends abruptly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Principles of Natural Justice - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner, a police officer, was removed from service for continuous absence of 21 days; the enquiry was conducted orally without notice and in the absence of the petitioner, which the petitioner alleged was a violation of natural justice - The court's decision on the matter is not available in the provided excerpt, as the judgment text ends abruptly (No specific paragraphs).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the departmental enquiry leading to compulsory retirement was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, and whether the order should be quashed with direction for fresh enquiry?
Law Points
- Departmental enquiry must comply with principles of natural justice
- ex parte oral enquiry without notice to delinquent is violative
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 270
S. Balaji, G.V. Vairam Santhosh
1. The Director General of Police, Chennai Fort, Tamil Nadu; 2. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar & District; 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivakasi Sub Division, Virudhunagar District.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging compulsory retirement order.
Remedy Sought
Quash the confirming order of first respondent dated 22.08.2018 and the order of second respondent dated 24.07.2015, and direct the second respondent to conduct fresh enquiry.
Filing Reason
Removal from service for continuous absence of 21 days based on an oral enquiry conducted without notice or opportunity to participate.
Previous Decisions
The second respondent removed the petitioner from service; the first respondent, on mercy petition, modified the removal to compulsory retirement.
Issues
Whether the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice?
Whether the order of compulsory retirement should be quashed and fresh enquiry directed?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The enquiry was conducted ex parte without notice, thus violating natural justice; fresh enquiry should be ordered.
Respondents: The petitioner did not submit explanation despite opportunities; the first respondent considered the mercy petition and modified the punishment to compulsory retirement after careful consideration.
Judgment Excerpts
the third respondent had conducted oral enquiry without the presence of the petitioner, which is not in accordance with law
there is a clear violation of natural justice
the first respondent had carefully gone through the Pros and Cons of the disciplinary departmental action initiated against the petitioner
Procedural History
The second respondent issued a charge for absence and instructed the petitioner to appear; the petitioner did not appear. The second respondent ordered the third respondent to conduct an enquiry. The third respondent conducted an oral enquiry without notice and submitted a report in P.R.No.27/2014 dated 24.07.2015. Based on the report, the second respondent passed an order of removal from service effective 26.08.2015. The petitioner filed appeals on 01.02.2018 and 15.02.2018, which were treated as mercy petitions. The first respondent, by order dated 22.08.2018 in R.C.No.091092/AP.2(3)/2018, modified the removal to compulsory retirement from the date of the original order. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
