IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
M. Muthu - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.32592 of 2016
Decided On : 18-11-2022
Dismissal from Service - Central Reserve Police Force - CRPF Act 1949 - Article 226 - [DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE] - [CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE] - [CRPF Act 1949, Article 11(1)] - The court quashed the dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner, citing lack of evidence and disproportionate punishment. The court directed reinstatement with a reduced penalty, and emphasized the need to implement government orders discontinuing the practice of orderlies for personal works and take action against officials practicing such colonial systems.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, was dismissed from service based on charges of disobedience, neglect of duty, and misconduct. The petitioner alleged discrimination and personal vengeance by superior officials in the imposition of the penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges were not adequately proved and the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. The court also noted the discriminatory treatment compared to another constable facing similar allegations. The court emphasized the need to address the petitioner's complaints of being forced to perform menial duties and the discontinuation of the practice of orderlies for personal works.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of evidence for the charges, the proportionality of the dismissal penalty, and the discriminatory treatment compared to another constable. The court also addressed the petitioner's complaints of being forced to perform menial duties and the discontinuation of the practice of orderlies for personal works.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges were not adequately proved, the dismissal penalty was disproportionate, and the petitioner faced discriminatory treatment. The court emphasized the need to address the petitioner's complaints and implement government orders discontinuing the practice of orderlies for personal works.
Final Decision: The court quashed the dismissal from service, directed reinstatement with a reduced penalty, and emphasized the need to implement government orders discontinuing the practice of orderlies for personal works and take action against officials practicing such colonial systems.
ORDER :
[Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of 5th respondent herein made in proceedings P.VIII.4/2014-97-Estt-2 dated 22.12.2014 imposing punishment of dismissal from service and consequential order dated 26.05.2015 of 4th respondent in proceedings No.R.XIII.1/2015-Estt-I and order dated 21.01.2016 of 3rd respondent in proceedings No.R.XIII-16/2015-W.S.Adm.-6 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all monetary benefits and back wages.]
1. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the writ petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, are under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner joined in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Constable on 25.09.2004. While the petitioner was serving in 97 Battalion CPRF, Jharkhand, he reported to A/97 Battalion Company. The Officer Commanding (OC) Shri V.Sumesh Kumar of the Company asked the petitioner to do orderly duties to assist him in doing all kind of personal works. The petitioner expressed his inability to do such duties as he was interested only for performing all kind of combatant duties applicable for Constable Rank in CRPF. On behalf of OC A/97 Battalion, Company Havildar Major and Mess SO insisted the petitioner to do orderly duty to OC A/97 Battalion. The petitioner again expressed his inability and stated that he is not interested in performing orderly duties. This was the incident, which created personal vengeance against the petitioner in the mind of the Superior Officials.
3. The petitioner states that in an another occasion, while the Company was deployed for Election Duty at Nellore, Andhra Pradesh during February 2014, every Saturday evening a mini cultural programme was being conducted at Company location under the supervision of Shri.V.Sumesh Kumar, OC A/97 in which and talented personnel used to sing and dance in front of Company personnel. When the Company Commander asked the petitioner to sing and dance after finishing the mess mess meeting, the petitioner expressed his inability to sing and dance being a shy person. The Company Commander repeatedly asked the petitioner in abused manner and the petitioner could not do the same. Thereafter, the Company Commander used to behave indifferently with the petitioner. Whenever, the Company personnel applied for leave, Company Havildar Major (CHM) pressurised them to offer liquor bottles for ensuring sanction of leave. The petitioner refused to give liquor bottle, whenever his leave was sanctioned.
4. The petitioner narrated some other ordeal circumstances underwent by him at the instance of Superior Officials. In this backdrop, a charge memo was issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 31.05.2014 framing five charges as detailed hereunder:-
“ARTICLE - I
That the said Force No. 041677353 CU/GD M. Muthu A/97 Battalion while functioning as Constable (GD) committed disobedience of orders/neglect of duty/remissness in the discharge of his duty/other misconduct or misbehaviour in his capacity as a member of the Force us 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949, in that he went out of the campus without permission of the Competent authority in sensitive area like Jharkhand.
ARTICLE - II
That the said Force No. 041677353 Ct/GD M. Muthu A/97 Battalion while functioning in the aforesaid Battalion committed a guilty of disobedience of orders/neglect of duty /remissness in the discharge of his duty/other misconduct or misbehaviour in his capacity as a member of the Force us 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949, in that he consumed country liquor madhira in sensitive area like Jharkhand.
ARTICLE-III
That the said Force No. 041677353 Ct/GD M. Muthu A/97 Battalion while functioning in the aforesaid Battalion committed a guilty of disobedience of orders/neglec
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for proportionality in imposing penalties, the requirement for adequate evidence to support charges, and the importance of addressing disc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of proportionality in imposing disciplinary action, the requirement for clear and specific charges in a domestic inquiry, and the sco....
The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, and the principles of natural justice and statutory regulations prescribing the mode of enquiry must be followed.
The court's decision highlighted the discretionary nature of issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and emphasized the limited scope for interference in disciplinary matters, u....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.