"5. The above said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, for the reason that when the petitioner absented from duty without taking prior permission from the authority, he was issued with a charge memo and in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner neither submitted a scrap of paper nor he chose to file detailed explanation supported with acceptable documents to show that he really fell ill. Therefore, he was imposed with a punishment of removal from service, however, on his appeal before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, the said authority, while considering the case of the petitioner, modified the punishment of dismissal from service into one of compulsory retirement, taking into account that the petitioner had rendered 18 years of service. As against that, when review petition was filed before the first respondent, the same was also dismissed. Therefore, by looking into those materials placed before this Court, I can see that the petitioner has not maintained unblemished record and that the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupram, dated 24.09.2003, clearly shows that the petitioner has suffered seven more punishments. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to show any leniency to the petitioner, especially when the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, had already modified the punishment of dismissal from service into one of compulsory retirement.
