Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1399 (MAD)

A. Selvaraj v. Commandant & Others

2002-11-14

P.K.MISRA

body2002
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2.The petitioner was working under the Central Reserve Police Force since July 1993. Between February 1995 and February 1996, he was posted in 28th Battalion, Madras. While he was so posted, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The gravamein of the allegation was to the effect that the petitioner by misrepresenting that his mother was suffering from cancer, obtained leave and subsequently when it was discovered that his mother had already expired, the petitioner admitted his mistake. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner also admitted his mistake and pleaded for leniency. However, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal. 3. The writ petition was filed against the order of dismissal. Subsequently during the pendency of the writ petition, the appeal which had been preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed and subsequently by way of amendment, the petitioner has also challenged the appellate order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had admitted his mistake and had pleaded for leniency in the matter of punishment. However, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service was passed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment appears to be very harsh and grossly disproportionate and unless the order of dismissal is set aside, the petitioner would be left without any means of livelihood. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Central Reserve Police is a disciplined force and the members of such force are expected to maintain utmost discipline and honesty while discharging their duty and the petitioner should not misled the authority by applying for leave on a non-existing ground. 6. There is no dispute that the CRPF is a disciplined force and the members of such force are expected to maintain discipline. The petitioner had tried to avail leave by giving a wrong reason. Even though such conduct of the petitioner is deplorable, in my opinion, the extreme penalty of dismissal from service that too in respect of a lowly constable appears to be very harsh and disproportionate. There is no allegation that there was any misconduct of the petitioner on any previous occasion. Though it is very easy to be sanctimonious on these matters, in my opinion a pragmatic view has to be taken. There is no allegation that there was any misconduct of the petitioner on any previous occasion. Though it is very easy to be sanctimonious on these matters, in my opinion a pragmatic view has to be taken. It is to be noticed that subsequently the petitioner himself had admitted his mistake and had pleaded for mercy. Instead of imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal, the disciplinary authority should have imposed some lesser punishment. The order of dismissal is therefore liable to be quashed. 7. In normal course, I would have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration relating to question of punishment. However, I feel that since the matter has been pending since 1996, it would be appropriate to bring the matter to an end by imposing appropriate punishment. While directing that the petitioner should be reinstated, it is directed that no backwages would be paid to the petitioner for the period from the date of dismissal till today. However, for the purpose of seniority and pension etc., the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service for the above said period. The petitioner may be given an appropriate posting within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.