COMMANDANT Vs. S SELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge made in W. P. No. 6409 of 1999 dated 19. 11. 2002 wherein the learned judge has quashed the order of removal from service of the respondent in the central Reserve Police Force and modified the order of removal from service by ordering reinstatement subject to certain conditions.

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: THE respondent joined the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as CRPF) as constable at Avadi, Chennai from 1. 4. 1990 and after completion of basic training, he was posted to 28 Battalion. THE respondent while on duty proceeded on leave for 30 days from 4. 8. 1995 to 3. 9. 1995 and thereafter he remained over stay leave for 11 days and reported at c/28 Jammu on 15. 9. 1995 and F/28 on 20. 9. 1995. It is stated that the respondent was called by the officer commanding F/28 in his chamber on 22. 9. 1995 seeking explanation for his overstay leave. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent while producing medical certificate in support of his over stay leave had misbehaved with his seniors in the presence of the company commander. Consequently, the respondent was awarded a punishment of two hours pack drill for one day i. e. On 22. 9. 1995, which the respondent refused to undergo. THEreafter, he was again awarded a punishment of 6 days Quarter Guard confinement with forfeiture of pay and allowances under Section 11 (3) of CRPF act 1949. THE respondent, according to the appellants, refused to undergo the punishment and he was found loitering outside the cell. As a result of which, he was again awarded the punishment of two hours pack drill on 24. 9. 1995 for 10 days to run concurrently which the respondent disobeyed to undergo. As a result of his disobedience, departmental enquiry was initiated and the following articles of charges were framed: Article -I: That No. 901160813 CT. S. Selvam of F/28 Bn, CRPF while functioning as CT. (GD) during the period from 1991 committed an offence of disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 in that he refused to undergo the terms of punishment of one day pack drill from 2 hours and six days confinement to lines with two hours extra pack drill daily awarded to him on 22. 9. 95 by OC F/28 Bn, crpf in his O. R. Article-II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said No. 901160813 Ct. S. Selvam was guilty of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force under Section 11 (1) of CRPF act, 1949 in that he addressed a petition/complaint against his seniors directly to higher authority without exhausting the normal channels.

(3.) THE next submission of Mr. Krishnan, learned Senior central Government Standing Counsel is that the view of the learned Judge that the respondent was not given adequate opportunity during the course of inquiry is not justified. Here also, we find that the counsel for appellant is well-founded in his submission. We have gone through the records and we find that the respondent was given adequate opportunity during the course of inquiry. THE Appellate authority has found that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority offered the opportunities to the delinquent officer. Hence, we hold that the respondent was given adequate opportunity during the course of enquiry to represent his case. As a matter of fact, in the affidavit filed by the respondent, there is no such averment that adequate opportunity was not granted to him during the course of the enquiry, nor has he made any complaint before the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority that he was not given adequate opportunity during the course of inquiry.