IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.6.2008 C O R A M : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYA NARAYANAN W.P.No.1813 of 2004 K.P.Nagarajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Director General of Police, Chennai-600 002. 2. Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Egmore, Chennai -600 008. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law & Order (South), Chennai-600 008. 4. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 5. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-600 104. ... Respondents PRAYER :Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed in O.A.No.4478 of 1995 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 07.7.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant service benefits and pass such further orders. For Petitioner :: No appearance For respondents :: Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, GA for RR1 to 4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.K.MISRA, J.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. In normal course, we could have dismissed the writ petition for default. However, on going through the materials on record, we find that the basic prayer made by the petitioner relating to the disproportionate nature of punishment could be considered. 2. The petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorised absence for a long period. In the Original Application filed by the petitioner, one of the main contentions raised was relating to punishment. It was contended that since the petitioner had worked in the department for about 16 years without any previous blemish, the order of punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and, at any rate, the punishment of compulsory retirement could have been imposed so the petitioner and his family members could have atleast received the pensionary benefits. However, the Tribunal rejected such contention by observing that since the petitioner was absent for a long period, it cannot be said that the dismissal was disproportionate. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has supported the reasoning given by the Tribunal. 4. Having gone through the materials on record and having heard the learned counsel for the respondents, we feel that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order of dismissal is required to be modified to the one of compulsory retirement. In normal course, we would have remanded the matter to the departmental authority for fresh consideration. However, keeping in view the fact that the incident related to the year 1992 and about 15 years have elapsed in the meantime, we feel that in order to bring the litigation to an end, the matter should be finalised by the High Court. 5. Accordingly, while upholding the findings in the departmental proceedings, we modify the punishment from dismissal to the one of compulsory retirement. It shall be deemed that the petitioner had been compulsorily retired with effect from 21.9.1994. 6. The writ petition is disposed of subject to the above modification relating to the punishment. The service benefits may be disbursed to the petitioner in accordance with the rules as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /true copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar js https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. Director General of Police, Chennai-600 002. 2. Commissioner of Police, City Police Office, Egmore, Chennai -600 008. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law & Order (South), Chennai-600 008. 4. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. + 1 cc to the Government Pleader SR No.31720 W.P No.1813 of 2004 SS(CO) JJM(07.07.08) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/