THE GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS. versus MOHD. TAHER ALI

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 09-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MOHD. TAHERALI 
OCTOBER 9, 2007 
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
B 
"' 
Service Law: 
Disciplinary proceedings-Quantum ofpunishment-Police C 
Constable-Unauthorised absence from Election Bandobust Duty-
Charge for offence of desertion proved-Disciplinary authority 
imposing punishment of compulsory retirement observing that it was 
not the solitary instance and delinquent had also been earlier found 
guilty of desertion-Administrative Tribunal remitting matter back D 
to disciplinary authority for re-consideration only on question of 
punishment-Order affirmed by High Court-HELD: Absence from 
Election Bandobust (security arrangements) Duty was a very serious 
lapse on the part of delinquent and penalty of compulsory retirement 
was rightly imposed-Even ignoring earlier absence, charge of 
absence for 21 days by member of disciplined force having been E 
proved, is sufficient to justify his compulsory retirement-Orders of 
Tribunal and High Court remitting the matter back for 
reconsideration on question of punishment set aside. 
State of Mysore v. V.K. Manche Gowda, [1964] 4 SCR 540, F 
cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2043 
of2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 9.3.2005 of the High G 
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition 
No. 19690 of 2004. 
D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellants. 
929 
H 
, )r-
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. . 
A 
Promila for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
B 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 
9 .3 .2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhm Pradesh High Court 
in Writ Petition No. 19690 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench has 
affirmed the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal whereby the 
C Administrative Tribunal remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority 
for consideration of the punishment imposed in the matter. Hence the 
present appeal filed the State of A.P. 
It is not necessary to go into the detailed facts. Suffice it to say 
D that the incumbent was a police Constable at Alwal (Halia) P.S. and he 
was detailed for election duty at Cuddapah Election Bandobusth duty 
along with other PS men with instructions to report before SDPO 
Miryalguda, but he did not report for duty on 2nd September, 1999 along 
with other PS men before SDPO Miryalguda and absented himself 
E unauthorisedly without leave or permission with effect from 2nd 
September, 1999. Therefore, he was charged for the offence of desertion. 
The C.I. of Police, Miryalguda was appointed as Inquiry Officer to 
conduct the inquiry. The respondent did not file any written representation 
of defence in response to the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the 
F Inquiry Officer held an Inquiry and found him guilty and submitted his 
report to the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and the Superintendent 
of Police on receipt of the same, sent a copy of that report to the 
respondent but he did not file any written representation of defence in 
response to that report. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police concluded 
that the respondent has no explanation to the charges levelled against him. 
G It was also recorded that this is not a solitary incidence. The respondent 
has also earlier been found to be guilty of desertion on a couple of 
occassions. Hence the S.P. imposed a punishment of compulsory 
retirement from service with immediate effect. This was challenged before 
the Admir1istrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal did not interfere 
H 
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. v. MOHD. TAHERALI 
931 
with the finding of the report of the Inquiry Officer but remitted the A 
matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the 
question of punishment. Aggrieved by that order, the State Government 
filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court affirmed 
the order of the Administrative Tribunal. Henche the present appeal. 
It is an admitted position that the respondent was appointed on 
election duty but he absented himself from election duty. It seems that 
B 
the respondent did not consider the election duty to be an important 
business which is very important for the whole nation. The respondent 
was appointed on election duty and was deputed to take security C 
arrangement but absented himself from duty. This is a very serious lapse 
on the part of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.