The Madras High Court Bench here has dismissed a writ appeal preferred by the Home Secretary challenging a single judge’s order in favour of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) who was subjected to disciplinary proceedings allegedly at the behest of a former Director General of Police.
A Division Bench of Justices Nooty Ramamohana Rao and S.S. Sundar refused to interfere with the order of Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana who had set aside a charge memo issued to DSP K.P.S. Jeyachandran by Tirunelveli Superintendent of Police on March 11, 2015, after holding that it had been issued with a “mala fide intention.”
Allowing the DSP’s writ petition, the single judge had expressed surprise over the SP having issued the charge memo for “highly reprehensible conduct in not having obtained any prior permission from superior officer before availing medical leave” after having ratified the absence and accepting leave letters without adverse remarks.
Stating that the DSP had availed himself of medical leave from August 26, 2014 since he suffered a ligament tear, a day earlier, while alighting from a truck during inspection of vehicles to prevent smuggling of contraband, the judge pointed out that he had also obtained prior permission from the SP over phone and submitted medical certificates.
Passing orders on the writ appeal preferred jointly by the Home Secretary and the SP, the Division Bench said: “The charges reveal a kind of mistrust the Superintendent of Police has laid against the writ petitioner. Otherwise, the very first charge, particularly, in the language in which it is couched would not have been framed.
“We remind ourselves that it may not, at all times, be possible to intimate in advance the leave of absence by a public servant. A variety of circumstances or contingencies may develop so suddenly that they may successfully prevent the public servant from seeking leave of absence well in advance.”
Further, observing that condoning absence would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the judges said they were not interfering with the single judge’s order for the sole reason that the DSP’s error of judgement, in not intimating leave in a more appropriate manner, could not be treated as a grave misconduct.
