Madras High CourtS. Selvam vs The Commandant, Deputy Inspector ... on 19 November, 2002Author:P.K. MisraBench:P.K. MisraORDER
 

 P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2.The petitioner was served with an order of removal from service, which has been confirmed in appeal.  The petitioner was serving in Central Reserve Police Force (per short 'CRPF').  Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.  The gravamen of the charge was to the effect that the petitioner has overstayed leave.  In the departmental proceedings, the petitioner filed reply denying articles of charge.  However, the petitioner had remained exparte.  Ultimately, the disciplinary authority found that the petitioner had overstayed and thereafter the order of removal has been passed.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding was decided exparte and sufficient opportunity had not been given.  In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of removal from service has the effect of depriving  the petitioner of the means of livelihood and the order of punishment is grossly disproportionate to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner.4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that  proceedings had been conducted in accordance with rules and the petitioner had not co-operated in the enquiry.  It has been further stated that CRPF, being a disciplined force, the employees of CRPF have to maintain utmost discipline and this sort of activities should not be encouraged.  It has been further stated that keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his subsequent disobedience, it cannot be said that the order of removal from service is disproportionate.5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that adequate opportunity to the petitioner had not been given prima facie appears to be correct and in normal course, I would have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh disposal.  However, I find that the matter is pending before this Court since 1999 and the main allegation regarding absence from duty appears to be undisputed.  Therefore, it would not be proper to remand the matter at this distant point of time and in my opinion, interest of justice would be served by considering the alternative plea of the petitioner regarding the punishment imposed.6. On going through the materials on record and keeping in view the nature of allegation, the punishment of removal from service, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be grossly disproportionate and it would have been more proper to impose some other punishment.  It is no doubt true that CRPF is a disciplined force and the employees are required to maintain discipline.  However, by removing the petitioner from service, he has been deprived of the means of  livelihood.  In many similar cases, Supreme Court has taken lenient view of the matter, even in respect of disciplined forces like Police and directed for modification of the order of punishment.7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that interest of justice would be served by quashing the order of removal by modifying the punishment.  While quashing the order of removal from service, it is directed that the petitioner shall be confined to Quarter Guard for a period of three days.  It is further directed that no backwages would be paid for the period from the date of removal till the date of rejoining.  The petitioner shall report before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of order and thereafter and after undergoing the punishment now imposed, an appropriate order regarding posting shall be passed by the first respondent.  Even if the petitioner would not be paid of the backwages for the above period, the said period shall be treated for other service benefits such as seniority, increments, pension, etc.8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.  No costs.