S SELVAM Vs. COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(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. USltimately, 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. 3.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.