SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
E.Panneer Selvam – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
WP 7110/2015



Advocates:
['M/S A S MUJIBUR RAHMAN', '', 'K SIVAKUMAR', 'M/S V ASHOK KUMAR']

Order dated : 11.07.2022

Writ Petition No.7110 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.07.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

Writ Petition No.7110 of 2015

E.Panneer Selvam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Union of India,

represented by its

Secretary to Government,

Ministry of Home Affairs,

New Delhi.

2.The Director General,

Office of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),

Head Office - CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road,

New Delhi - 110 003.

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Adm.),

Office of the Inspector General of Police,

Group Centre, Southern Sector,

CRPF, Chandrayan Gutta,

Keshogiri, Hyderabad - 560 005.

Andhra Pradesh.

4.The Deputy Inspector General (DIGP),

The Office of the DIGP -GC CRPF,

Avadi, Chennai - 600 065.

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Order dated : 11.07.2022

Writ Petition No.7110 of 2015

5.The Commandant (CO),

Head Quarters 19 BN,

RSP Trainees Hostel,

Sector 5, Rourkela,

Orissa.

... Respondents

PRAYER

: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records

relating to the order passed by the third respondent in his Order No.R.XIII-

1/2014-Adm-7 dated 16.02.2015 confirming the order of the fifth respondent

dated 17.01.2012 in his Office Order No.P.VIII-10/2011-19-EC-II and quash

the same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner as Constable in the

strength of Central Reserve Police Force and pay all monetary benefits.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman

For Respondents

:

Mr.V.Ashok Kumar

Central Government Standing Counsel

*****

O R D E R

The order of discharge issued by the third respondent in proceedings

dated 16.02.2015 confirming the order of the fifth respondent dated 17.01.2012

is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner joined as Sweeper in the Central Reserve Police Force on

25.08.2008 and the qualification for the post of Sweeper and Constable was

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Order dated : 11.07.2022

Writ Petition No.7110 of 2015

eighth standard pass. The petitioner states that at the time of his enlistment, a

certificate was attached by the agent without his knowledge, which he came to

know later that it was not genuine. The petitioner states that he studied in the

Government Higher Secondary School, Manalurpettai, Villupuram District, and

the original transfer certificate was issued on 19.11.2007, which was not

produced wrongly without any intention. Thereafter, the petitioner was

appointed as Constable. The fifth respondent, on 17.07.2010, issued a show

cause notice to the petitioner calling for an explanation as to why action should

not be initiated for producing false certificate. The petitioner submitted his reply

and thereafter, a charge memorandum was issued in proceedings dated

31.08.2010. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he had studied

in the R.C.Middle School, Manalurpettai and the same was verified by the fifth

respondent with reference to the genuineness of the certificate. Thereafter, the

said departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated were dropped. However, the

petitioner was not permitted to work in the Battalion and therefore, he

proceeded to his native place. Subsequently, the fifth respondent issued the

impugned order in proceedings dated 17.01.2012. On expiry of one month

notice, the petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 30.12.2011.

The petitioner submitted a representation to the competent authority setting out

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Order dated : 11.07.2022

Writ Petition No.7110 of 2015

the facts and circumstances, however, the competent authority rejected his

representation on the ground that the petitioner has not brought out any new

facts for the purpose of reconsidering the decision taken by the CRPF

author

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top