Madras High Court
WA/1661/2024 of THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Vs M.MURTHY on 23 September 2026
WA No. 1661 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WA No. 1661 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA011612052023}
1. The Secretary To Government
Home (Police VI) Department, Fort St.
George, Chennai-09.
2. The Director General Of Police
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-04.
3. The Superintendent Of Police,
Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
M.Murthy
..Respondent(s)
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 10.02.2022 made in WP No.42449 of 2016 and allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellant(s):
Mrs.Y.Kavitha,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent(s):
Mr.Sheik Thanveer Ahamed
for Mr.S.Sivakumar
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 06:33:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4017
WA No. 1661 of 2024
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The Writ Order dated 10.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.42449 of 2016 is under challenge in the present intra-court appeal. State is the appellant.
2. Respondent instituted writ proceedings challenging the order of dismissal from service passed in Proceedings in PR.No.01/2007, dated 23.03.2007
and
rejection
of
mercy
petition
in RC.No.198266/AP.2(2)/2009, dated 18.02.2010. Respondent joined as Grade-II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Service on 01.05.1988. After rendering 17 years of service, on personal grounds, he deserted the job and remained unauthorisedly absent for duty from 24.06.2006 to 14.07.2006 continuously for 21 days. Admittedly, he had proceeded on leave without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. Thus, he was declared as a deserter under Police Standing Order No.95(2) Part-I. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, in pursuance of the said declaration, passed deserter order dated 20.07.2006. Subsequently, confirmation deserter order was passed by the Superintendent of Police vide Proceedings, dated 22.08.2006.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 06:33:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4017 WA No. 1661 of 2024
3. Respondent was declared as a deserter after conducting a departmental enquiry by initiating disciplinary proceedings. Enquiry was conducted, charges relating to unauthorised absence was held proved, and thereafter, he was declared as a deserter. Therefore, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the procedure followed by the Department to declare the respondent as a deserter.
4. In the present case, respondent has served 17 years of qualifying service without any blemish. On personal grounds, he remained absent for 21 days continuously. Thus, departmental action was initiated and charge regarding unauthorised absence for 21 days was held proved and he was declared as a deserter under the Police Standing Order.
5. No doubt, under the Police Standing Order, uniformed personnel remaining unauthorisedly absent are bound to be punished. In the present case, procedures are also followed. However, this Court is of the view that respondent has served 17 years of qualifying service without any blemish. Therefore, the authorities ought to have taken a lenient view, considering the personal grounds raised by the respondent in his
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 06:33:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4017 WA No. 1661 of 2024
explanation. It is not a long unauthorised absence. More so, respondent is not a habitual offender. He has put in 17 years of unblemished service. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges proved against the respondent. Learned Single Judge has considered this aspect and directed for reinstatement without backwages.
6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent reached the age of superannuation. Therefore, question of reinstatement would not arise. However, he is entitled for pension for the qualifying services rendered by him, which is about 17 years. Thus, appellants are directed to settle the terminal and pensionary benefits as admissible under the Rules for the qualifying services rendered by the respondent in Tamil Nadu Police Service. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that respondent is not entitled for backwages and is entitled only for the benefits as admissible for the period of qualifying services rendered by him in the Tamil Nadu Police Service.
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 06:33:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4017 WA No. 1661 of 2024
7. With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 06:33:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4017 WA No. 1661 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WA No. 1661 of 2024 23-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 29/09/2026 06:33:53 pm )