S DHANASEKARAN Vs. COMMANDANT 42 BN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent, the Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Chennai dated 19.03.2003, confirming the order of the first respondent dated 24.09.202, holding that the charge against the petitioner has been proved by confirming the order of dismissal, and rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner jointed the Central Reserve Police Force as a Constable in 1987 and he was posted after completion of the training to 42 Bn. When he was serving in Delhi, he got a telegram on 06.09.2001, to the effect that his wife was serious and had to undergo surgery immediately. It is stated that, enclosing the said telegram, the petitioner applied for leave with 42 Bn. Commandant, Delhi and there was no reply from the concerned officer till 23.09.2001.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the submission of Mr.Gopi Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner himself has given his reply in Hindi as it is seen from the records and therefore, he cannot complain about the conducting of the proceedings in Hindi at all. As far as the allegation that the punishment is disproportionate is concerned, he has referred to Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, to substantiate his contention that the misconduct is serious enough and therefore, there cannot be any complaint that the punishment is disproportionate. It is also his submission that during the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner has admitted that he was under the influence of liquor. The learned counsel has also produced the files relating to the disciplinary proceedings.