Madras High Court
R.Muruga Dass vs The Director General
1
B E F O R E T H E MADU RAI B E N C H O F MADRA S HIGH C O U RT
DATED: 0 2 . 1 1 . 2 0 2 0
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. J U S T I C E S . M. S U B R AMA NIAM
W. P.(MD)N o. 5 2 6 6 o f 2 0 1 4
and
M. P(MD). N o. 2 o f 2 0 1 4
R.Muruga Dass ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General,
Central Reserve Police Force,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003.
2.The Inspector General of Police,
Northern Sector,
Central Reserve Police Force,
West Block, No.8, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110 066.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Central Reserve Police Force,
New Delhi.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Group Centre, Avadi,
Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
5.The Commandant,
54th Battalion
Central Reserve Police Force,
Bawana, Delhi-39.
6.The Commandant,
164 Battalion,
CRPF, Kokramag,
Ananthanag,
C/o.56 APO,
Jammu & Kashmir. ... Respondents
P R AY E R : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his office order No.R.XIII.
6/2012-NS.Adm-I, dated 08.01.2013 quash the same in so far as the
paragraph (b) and (d) of paragraph 6 of the order and to direct the
respondents to pay the salary from the period 13.03.2001 to 30.01.2013
treating as duty period and to pay increment, promotion and ACP and all
other benefits take the petitioner with all monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vadivelu
For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Laxman
Senior Panel Counsel
O RD E R
The order of punishment, which was modified by the revisional
authority in proceeding, dated 08.01.2013, is under challenge in the
present wit petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
2.The writ petitioner joined in the CRPF as Constable on 25.09.1992.
He served in various places. The petitioner states that he received an
information from his native place that his mother was serious and his wife
was missing and therefore, he applied for leave and gone to his native
place.
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states
that the leave was also sanctioned. Inspite of the fact that the reasons for
availing leave are genuine and the petitioner has also submitted the leave
letter, a charge memorandum was issued stating that the writ petitioner
had over stayed from leave and unauthorizedly absent for about 46 days
without sufficient reasons. The writ petitioner denied the charges and
participated in the process of enquiry and major penalty of removal from
service was imposed. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the
appellate authority confirmed the order of removal. Against the said
order, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition on 25.07.2012 and
the revisional authority viz., the Inspector General of Police, CRPF,
modified the punishment by quashing the original order passed by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, who confirmed
the punishment of removal from service. Thereafter, the writ petitioner
has been reinstated in service. However, the writ petition is filed with
reference to the punishment of withholding of one increment for a
period of one year with effect from the date of issue of the order with
cumulative effect and further regulating the period as non-leave.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner made a
submission that the petitioner had properly submitted the leave letter
and gone to his native to solve certain domestic problems. Thus, the
requisition is genuine and therefore, the punishment imposed by the
Revisional Authority is excessive and the same is liable to be set aside.
5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
disputed the said contentions by stating that the writ petitioner is a
habitual unauthorized absentee and on earlier occasions, he had
abandoned his duty on several occasions. Therefore, no further leniency
is to be shown. The revisional authority himself had taken a lenient view
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
by modifying the punishment of removal from service and therefore,
further consideration need not be shown to the writ petitioner.
6.The counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent reveals that
the petitioner has committed an act of misconduct by over stayed from
leave for 287 days on different occasions during his service of more than
9 years and keeping in view of length of service rendered by the
petitioner, a lenient view was taken and the punishment of removal from
service was modified. The statement showing the overstayal and
unauthorized absence of the writ petitioner are stated, as extracted
hereunder:
Sl. Leave Overstayed No. of days
N granted From To
o. Year
1. 1993 20/12/93 21/12/93 02 days
2. 1995 17/10/95 05/12/95 50 days
3. 1998 11/10/98 01/01/99 83 days
4. 1999 06/05/99 18/08/09 105 days
5. 2000 17/06/00 01/08/2000 46 days
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
7.This Court is of the considered opinion that CRPF being a
uniformed service, utmost discipline is of paramount importance. There
cannot be any compromise in the matter of maintenance of discipline
amongst the personnel. Thus, a bad precedent cannot be created, while
interfering with the punishment imposed, more specifically, misconduct
of habitual unauthorized absentees. In the present case, a charge
memorandum was issued for the overstayal of 46 days. However, the
counter affidavit reveals that on several occasions, the petitioner had
stayed in his native and such details are also furnished. The order of
removal passed by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the
appellate authority was reviewed and modified by the revisional authority
by taking a lenient view. The revisional authority had considered the
length of services as well as the domestic problems faced by the
petitioner before the revisional authority.
8.Taking note of the facts and circumstances the major penalty of
removal from service was modified and the punishment of stoppage of
increment for one year with cumulative effect is imposed. Treating the
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
period of absence as non-duty cannot be questioned in view of the fact
that the petitioner had not worked for the said period and hence, the
principle of 'no work no pay' will be applicable. Considering the overall
fact that a lenient view had already been taken by the revisional
authority, this Court is not inclined to grant any further concession or
leniency, as uniformed personnel are expected to maintain utmost
discipline and integrity in their services. Therefore, the writ petition is
devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.11.2020
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Ns
1.The Director General,
Central Reserve Police Force,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003.
2.The Inspector General of Police,
Northern Sector,
Central Reserve Police Force,
West Block, No.8, R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110 066.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Central Reserve Police Force,
New Delhi.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
S . M. S U B R AMA NIAM, J.
Ns
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Avadi, Chennai.
5.The Commandant, 54th Battalion Central Reserve Police Force, Bawana, Delhi-39.
6.The Commandant, 164 Battalion, CRPF, Kokramag, Ananthanag, C/o.56 APO, Jammu & Kashmir.
W. P.(MD)N o. 5 2 6 6 o f 2 0 1 4 and M. P(MD). N o. 2 o f 2 0 1 4 0 2.1 1.2 0 2 0 http://www.judis.nic.in