Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C. SARAVANAN
Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
5th Respondent – Respondent
W.P.No.27670 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Learned counsel for the Petitioner
For the Respondents: Learned Senior Panel Central Government Standing Counsel (SPCGSC)
A disciplinary order of removal for unauthorized absence must be based on evidence and fair inquiry; absence of substantiating evidence by the charged party warrants confirmation, but reconsideration is allowed if new evidence is produced.
Headnote:(A) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - Section 11(1); CRPF Rules, 1955 - Rules 27 and 28 - Disciplinary proceedings - Misconduct for overstay of leave without permission and disobedience of lawful orders - Punishment of removal from service and regularization of unauthorized absence as dies non - Appeal and revision against departmental orders - Principles of natural justice - Inquiry conducted in Hindi language - Whether violation alleged - Opportunity to defend granted - Documents to substantiate mitigating circumstances - Burden on delinquent to produce evidence (Paras 2-8, 10, 18-21, 25)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a member of a disciplined force, overstayed leave without sanction from 18/11/2011 and disobeyed lawful orders to report for duty despite reminders. Following inquiry and arrest, the Petitioner pleaded guilty. The disciplinary authority found charges fully proved and imposed removal from service with forfeiture of service benefits and salary for the unauthorized absence period. Subsequent appeals and revision petitions were dismissed. The Petitioner challenged the orders contending inquiry in Hindi violated natural justice and sought lesser punishment.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that inquiry conducted in Hindi was not a violation, especially since the Petitioner admitted charges and had ample opportunity to defend. The Petitioner failed to furnish documentary evidence to support claims of matrimonial dispute or medical condition. Absence without valid reason for 407 days warranted removal. Partial relief granted by quashing the latest order and remitting to reconsider upon production of evidence within stipulated time.
Issues: Whether inquiry conducted in Hindi violated principles of natural justice; whether the punishment of removal was disproportionate; whether absence was justified; scope of consideration of documentary evidence in appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that procedural fairness was observed as Petitioner had opportunity to respond and participate. Absence without proper sanction prejudices discipline in a security force. Burden lies on the charged person to substantiate mitigating circumstances with evidence. Absence of such evidence warrants confirmation of removal order. However, reopening is permissible if fresh evidence is produced.
Result: Writ Petition partly allowed by quashing the order dated 19.10.2015 and remitting the case for fresh decision within 3 months on production of evidence. Otherwise, original punishment stands (Para 29).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. orders and conclusion of the judgment (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background and charges of misconduct (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 11 , 13 , 19) |
| 3. disciplinary and appellate orders affirming misconduct (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. petitioner’s and respondents’ contentions on inquiry validity and punishment (Para 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court’s analysis of natural justice principle and evidentiary deficiencies (Para 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. court’s reasoned decision to remit case for fresh consideration with evidentiary opportunity (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Impugned Orders passed by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents. The details of the Impugned Orders passed by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents are as under:-
2. The background of the aforesaid Impugned Orders is the Memorandum of Charges dated 19.11.2012 issued to the Petitioner by the 5th Respondent. The charges against the Petitioner in the aforesaid Memorandum of Charges dated 19.11.2012 issued by the 5th Respondent are as under:-
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid Memorandum of Charges dated 19.11.2012, an inquiry was held and a Warrant of Arrest was issued to the Petitioner after which the Petitioner was arrested on 28.12.2012 and released on 29.12.2012. The Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him in the Memorandum of Charges dated 19.11.2012.
4. The Inquiry Officer had also given an opportunity to the Petitioner to submit his defense witness if any and recorded the statement of the Petitioner. The Inquiry Officer also recorded the statements of 6 prosecution witnesses during the disciplinary proceedings. The 5th Respondent ultimately came to a conclusion vide Order dated 06.06.2013 that the charges framed against the Petitioner in Memorandum of Charges dated 19.11.2012 were made out as the Petitioner has failed to furnish any document to substantiate that either the Petitioner was suffering from depression or that he was proceeded in a matrimonial dispute and that a Hindu Marriage Original Petition (HMOP) was preferred before the Sub Court in Ariyalur or that criminal proceeding was pending against the Petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ariyalur.
5. The 5th Respondent thus terminated the services of the Petitioner and ordered as follows:-
“7. Keeping in view of the above, after careful examination all the pros and cons of the case, I have come to the conclusion that charges framed against No.045031134 CT/GD P.Saravanan of F/77 Bn., CRPF under Article-I and Article-II stands fully proved beyond any shadow of doubt and found him guilty of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force. No.045031134 CT/GD P.Saravanan of F/77 Bn., CRPF is overstaying from leave without a valid reason with effect from 18/11/2011 to 28/12/2012 for a period of 407 days and not found a fit person to be retained in service in a disciplined force like CRPF. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested upon me under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 , hereby impose the punishment of “REMOVAL FROM SERVICE” with effect from the date of issue of the order i.e., 06/06/2013(AN) upon No.045031134 CT/GD P.Saravanan of F/77 Bn., CRPF. Accordingly, he stands struck off the strength of this unit from the same date i.e., 06/06/2013(AN).
8. Further, the following orders are also hereby passed:-
i. His period of unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 18/11/2011 to 28/12/2012(AN) total 407 days is regularized as “DIES NON” for all purposes. He will not be entitled for any pay and allowances or any service benefits for the above period.
ii. All the medal and decorations, if any earned by the charged official during the period of his service in the Force are also hereby forfeited under the provision of Section 12(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 .
iii.Government dues, if any outstanding against him should be adjusted from the dues payable to him and credited into the Govt. treasury
