Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Grade II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police, challenged his removal from service before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. He was appointed as Tamil Nadu Special Police Youth Brigadier on 13.02.2014 and later promoted to Constable Grade II. While undergoing training at Thanjavur Police Recruitment School, he left the training camp on 14.03.2016 without prior permission, allegedly due to his father's accident and his own subsequent mental health issues. He remained absent for more than 21 days and was declared a deserter under Police Standing Order 95(Volume-I). A charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 was issued on 26.09.2016. After a departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed removal from service on 03.11.2017. The petitioner's appeal to the Inspector General of Police was rejected on 04.12.2018, and his mercy petition to the Director General of Police was rejected on 27.04.2022. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash these orders and reinstate him in service. His counsel argued that the absence was not willful but due to denial of leave and mental depression, and that the punishment was disproportionate. The respondents contended that the petitioner never requested leave, deserted training, and that removal was proportionate for a disciplined force. The High Court noted the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, holding that interference is warranted only if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. The court observed that the petitioner did not request any leave or permission to see his father during training, and his allegation of denial of leave was not mentioned in his explanation dated 09.10.2017. The disciplinary authority found that lethargic attitude was not acceptable from a person under training in a disciplined force. The court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran to reiterate that disciplinary proceedings are not governed by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt but by preponderance of probabilities. It held that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing final orders, and no natural justice violation was found. The court concluded that the punishment was proportionate to the delinquency and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the removal from service and the rejection of the appeal and mercy petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Constitution of India, Article 226; Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 3(b) - The High Court examined removal of a police constable for desertion from training and held that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; it cannot act as appellate authority. The punishment was not found shockingly disproportionate and no procedural irregularity was established. Held that interference with disciplinary authority's decision is warranted only in exceptional cases (Paras 10, 12-13). B) Service Law - Desertion from Training - Misconduct - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 3(b); Police Standing Order 95(Volume-I) - Leaving training camp without prior permission for more than 21 days led to declaration as deserter; the disciplinary authority's finding of misconduct was upheld. Held that such unauthorized absence in a disciplined force constitutes serious misconduct (Paras 8-9, 12). C) Service Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Removal from Service - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, Rule 3(b) - The court found removal from service proportionate to the delinquency of a trainee police constable who deserted training; no prior leave request was made. Held that lethargic attitude and unauthorized absence justify major punishment (Paras 10, 12). D) Service Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity to Defend - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner through oral enquiry and submissions; no violation of natural justice was found. Held that disciplinary proceedings complied with procedural fairness (Paras 2, 9, 12). E) Evidence - Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings - Preponderance of Probabilities - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Disciplinary enquiry is not governed by criminal standard or rules of evidence; only preponderance of probabilities is required. The court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran. Held that disciplinary findings can be based on probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the proved misconduct and whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of removal from service, rejection of appeal, and rejection of mercy petition, finding no grounds to interfere.
Law Points
- limited judicial review in disciplinary matters
- punishment not shockingly disproportionate
- disciplinary proceedings governed by preponderance of probabilities
- desertion from training is serious misconduct
- natural justice complied with
