Habitual desertion by police personnel warrants removal; courts should not dilute punishment on misplaced sympathy.

G. Aravindhan was appointed as a Grade-II Police Constable on 18.02.2013. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, on the charge that he deserted the Armed Police Force and remained unauthorisedly absent for more than 21 days, without reporting to the Superintendent of Police within the prescribed period of 60 days under the Director General of Police’s Circular dated 06.12.2007.

Aravindhan participated in the departmental enquiry and explained that he had gone to his native place to care for his mother, who had met with an accident. The Enquiry Officer found the charge proved, and the competent authority imposed the punishment of removal from service.

Before the present proceedings, Aravindhan had committed desertion on four occasions and had received lesser punishments, including postponement or reduction of increments.

His writ petition challenging the removal order was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 03.02.2023 in W.P.No.32578 of 2019. The authorities preferred the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

1. Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the respondent for repeated desertion and unauthorised absence was legally sustainable after a duly conducted departmental enquiry?

2. Whether the respondent was entitled to a lenient or lesser punishment in view of his explanation concerning his mother’s accident and the DGP Circular dated 06.12.2007?

3. Whether judicial interference to reduce the punishment imposed upon a member of a disciplined police force was warranted in the facts of the case?

The Court applied Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, under which disciplinary action may be taken for proved misconduct by police personnel.

It relied on the principle that members of the police and other uniformed services are subject to a heightened requirement of discipline, and that habitual desertion and unauthorised absence may justify severe disciplinary punishment.

The Court also considered the DGP Circular dated 06.12.2007, which permitted a lenient approach in appropriate cases, particularly where a deserter reported before the Superintendent of Police within 60 days; however, the Circular did not create an entitlement to such leniency in cases of repeated desertion or failure to comply with its conditions.

Judicial review does not ordinarily permit the Court to substitute its own view on the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary matters involving uniformed forces, absent exceptional grounds warranting intervention.

The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings had been conducted after issuance of a charge memo and with adequate opportunity to the respondent, and that the Enquiry Officer had recorded a finding that the charge of desertion was proved.

Although the respondent relied on his mother’s accident as an explanation, the Court considered his service record, which showed four earlier instances of desertion within approximately four years of service, for which the authorities had already imposed lesser punishments.

The Court held that the earlier leniency had not corrected the respondent’s conduct and that the present misconduct, coupled with his failure to report within 60 days as contemplated by the Circular, justified removal from service.

Given the disciplined nature of the Armed Police Force, repeated desertion was held capable of causing inconvenience, indiscipline, and demoralisation within the force. The Court therefore concluded that further reduction of the punishment on grounds of misplaced sympathy would exceed the proper limits of judicial review and create an undesirable precedent.

The writ order dated 03.02.2023 in W.P.No.32578 of 2019 was set aside. The writ appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed.