P.G.Saravanan v. Director General Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O.Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 16.7..2008Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRUW.P. No. 20442 of 1998P.G.Saravanan.. Petitioner Vs.1. Director General Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O.Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi2. Deputy Inspector General Central Reserve Police Force Avadi, Chennai-653. The Commandant 118 Bn., Central Reserve Police Force Sector -39 Chandigarh .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to callfor the records relating to the order passed by the thirdrespondent in his No.P.VIII.17/97-118-EC-II dated 23.9.1998 quashthe same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner intothe strength of CRPF with all monetary benefits.For Petitioner : Mr. M.Md.Ibrahim AliFor Respondents : Mr. M.Devadoss , ACGSCORDERHeard the arguments of Mr. Md. Ibrahim Ali, learned counselfor the petitioner and Mr. M. Devadoss, learned Additional CentralGovernment Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents andperused the records. 2.The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated23.9.1998 wherein and by which he was dismissed from service, but,however, warrant of arrest was cancelled and the entire tenure ofhis service was forfeited in terms of Section 12 of the CRPF Act,1949. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The petitioner was engaged as a Constable in the CRPFw.e.f. 11.11.1991. He was given training in Bihar in the 108thBattalion for ten months and thereafter, he was posted at variousplaces including Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir and Chandigarh. Thepetitioner applied for Earned Leave from 05.5.1997 to 03.7.1997 forhis health improvement. The petitioner was granted leave asrequested by him and when he was about to join duty on 04.7.1997,according to him, he became sick and he had to take treatment.Thereafter, he sent a letter dated 31.7.1997 tendering hisresignation. 4.By an order dated 30.12.1997, a charge memorandum wasframed against him holding him as a deserter. It is also statedthat inspite the communication to report to duty, he had disobeyedthe same and did not inform his whereabouts. In terms of Section11 of the CRPF Act, the petitioner was proceeded for the grievousact of deserting from the force. The petitioner sent a letterdated 24.01.1998 seeking for copies of the documents mentioned inAnnexure III to the memorandum but, in turn, he was informed by aletter dated 04.02.1998 that he will be provided only after hereports for duty. Thereafter, the order dated 23.9.1998 waspassed against the petitioner dismissing him from service w.e.f.the said date. Even though an appeal can be filed against thesaid order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner haschosen to file the present writ petition. 5.A counter affidavit dated 30.11.1999 has been filed bythe Additional Director General of Police (GC), CRPF, Avadirefuting the stand taken by the petitioner. 6.Pending the writ petition, this Court refused to grantany interim order. 7.Mr. Md. Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner contended that neglect of duty will come under Section11(1) of the CRPF Act for which he can be imposed with severalpunishments. But, however, Section 10(M) of the Act deals withless heinous offence which includes absence without leave. SinceSection 11(1) deals with minor punishment, the petitioner should beimposed minor punishment and not dismissal. He was also notgiven copies of the documents sought for along with the annexure.Therefore, the enquiry is vitiated. According to the petitioner,since he has committed less heinous offence, he should not bepunished in terms of Sections 10(1) and 10(M) of the Act. 8.This is a complete misreading of the Act. Thedistinction between the heinous crime and less heinous crime isonly for the purpose of imposing penalties by the CRPF. But withreference to the disciplinary powers, there is no distinction asminor penalty and major penalty. Therefore, this argument https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot be accepted on the ground of violation of principles ofnatural justice. It must be stated that when the petitionersought for copies found in Annexure III, he was asked to attend theenquiry and conclude the same which he did not do. On the otherhand, he had tendered a resignation letter, which is notpermissible in law. Therefore, the petitioner cannot complainabout the violation of principles of natural justice. 9.In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgmentof the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. DattaLinga Toshadwad [2005 (13) SCC 709] wherein in respect of the verysame post and in relation to the absentees, it held in paragraphs 6to 8 as follows:-Para 6:"One cannot ignore the large number of cases whichcome to this Court of members of uniformed forcesremaining absent from duty without any reasonableexplanation. Whenever action is taken, the usualplea taken is of having been ill or some such falsepretext, and even fake or false medical certificatesare produced in support of such a plea. We would nothave taken a serious view of the matter had it notbeen a case of a constable belonging to CRPFremaining absent for an indefinite period. Even ifwe assume that the respondent was suffering fromdepression and was being treated as an outdoorpatient, the medical certificates produced by himshow that he was restored to normalcy on 4-4-1998yet the respondent did not choose to report forduty. The order of dismissal was passed seven monthslater i.e. on 2-11-1998. This itself discloses thehollowness of the claim of the respondent regardingmental depression and imbalance which he claims tohave suffered. Para 7:Reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court inUnion of India v. Giriraj Sharma, which was also acase of a constable employed in CRPF. In that casethe respondent had been punished by an order ofdismissal for overstaying on leave by 12 days. TheHigh Court took the view that for such misconductthe punishment of dismissal from service was notjustified and was also harsh. This Court, whileagreeing with the High Court, dismissed the appealby holding that in the facts of the case, instead ofa major penalty, a minor penalty would have beensufficient. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Para 8:The present case is not a case of a constable merelyoverstaying his leave by 12 days. The respondenttook leave from 16-6-1997 and never reported forduty thereafter. Instead he filed a writ petitionbefore the High Court in which the impugned orderhas been passed. Members of the uniformed forcescannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas, havingregard to the nature of the duties enjoined on theseforces. Such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished,will greatly affect the discipline of the forces. Insuch forces desertion is a serious matter. Cases ofthis nature, in whatever manner described, are casesof desertion particularly when there is apprehensionof the member of the force being called upon toperform onerous duties in difficult terrains or anorder of deputation which he finds inconvenient, ispassed. We cannot take such matters lightly,particularly when it relates to uniformed forces ofthis country. A member of a uniformed force whooverstays his leave by a few days must be able togive a satisfactory explanation. However, a memberof the force who goes on leave and never reports forduties thereafter, cannot be said to be one merelyoverstaying his leave. He must be treated as adeserter. He appears on the scene for the first timewhen he files a writ petition before the High Court,rather than reporting to his Commanding Officer. Weare satisfied that in cases of this nature,dismissal from the force is a justified disciplinaryaction and cannot be described as disproportionateto the misconduct alleged."10.It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of theSupreme Court in Board of Directors, HPTC v. K.C.Rahi [2008 AIRSCW 1923] and the following passages found in paragraphs 7 and 8may be usefully reproduced:-Para 7:"The principles of natural justice cannot be put ina straight jacket formula. Its application dependsupon the facts and circumstances of each case. Tosustain a complaint of non-compliance of theprinciple of natural justice, one must establishthat he has been prejudiced thereby for non-compliance of principle of natural justice.Para 8:In the instant case, we have been taken throughvarious documents and also from representation dated19.10.1993 filed by the respondent himself it wouldclearly show that he knew that a departmentalenquiry was initiated against him yet he chose not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to participate in the enquiry proceedings at his ownrisk. In such event plea of principle of naturaljustice is deemed to have been waived and he isestopped from raising the question of non-complianceof principle of natural justice. In therepresentation submitted by him on 19.10.1993 thesubject itself reads "DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRIES". Itis stated at the Bar that the respondent is a Lawgraduate, therefore, he cannot take a plea ofignorance of law. Ignorance of law is of noexcuse much less by a person who is a Law graduatehimself."11.In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid ofmerits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there will beno order as to costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.griTo1. Director General Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O.Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi2. Deputy Inspector General Central Reserve Police Force Avadi, Chennai-653. The Commandant 118 Bn., Central Reserve Police Force, Sector -39 Chandigarh+ 1 CC To Mr.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali, Advocate SR NO.37915+ 1 CC To Mr.M.Devadass ,Advocate SR NO.37876Delivery Order inW.P. No. 20442 of 1998KG {CO}TP/11.8.08