Madras High Court
The Commandant vs P.Joseph Chandran on 19 July, 2023
Writ Appeal No.509 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal No.509 of 2014
M.P.No.1 of 2014
1.The Commandant,
23rd Battalion, CRPF,
Kumulong, Tripura
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
General Reserve Police Force,
Imphal, Manipur-793 ... Appellants
Vs
P.Joseph Chandran ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the
order dated 05.01.2012 made in W.P.No.748 of 2008.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Samivel
Sr.Panel counsel for Central Govt
For Respondent : Mr.P.Manoj Kumar
Page No.1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.509 of 2014
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)
This Intra-Court Appeal had been filed being aggrieved against the or
der passed by the learned Single Judge wherein the learned Single Judge had
set aside the order of dismissal passed by the appellants against the re
spondent herein and had modified the punishment by awarding a
punishment of single increment cut.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent herein was work
ing as a Constable in the appellant establishment and that charge memo had
been issued to him framing three charges which is as follows:-
a) Charge No.1 relates to refusal by him to undergo
punishment, that had been imposed in an another disciplinary
proceedings.
b) Charge No.2 relates to an incident where the re
spondent herein along with one other person had assaulted a
co-worker and had snatched the money.
c) charge No.3 relates to his previous misconduct, to al
Page No.2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.509 of 2014
lege that he is a habitually misconduct himself.
3.An enquiry had been ordered and the Enquiry Officer had sub
mitted a report that all the charges against the respondents as being proved.
Pursuant to the aforesaid enquiry report, an order dated 02.04.2006 came to
be passed by the first appellant herein. A perusal of the aforesaid order
would show that the first appellant had not dealt with in detail the
report of the enquiry officer for imposing a punishment of dismissal as
against the respondent. Even the Appellate Authority namely the second
appellant had also not given any valid reason as to why the order of
dismissal had to be upheld.
4.Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge in detail had analysed the
facts of the case and also the evidences that were let in during the course of
enquiry and came to a conclusion by considering the fact that a co-
delinquent who had been charged along with the respondent with respect to
the 2nd charge, had been imposed with a lesser punishment namely, single
increment cut, had held that the punishment imposed on the respondent
herein is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him on analysing
Page No.3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.509 of 2014
the various evidences that were let in to support the said charge.
5.Before us, the evidences that the learned Single Judge had the
benefit of were not produced. Even the Grounds of Appeal do not
effectively try to dislodge the findings given by the learned Single Judge.
6.In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reasons to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
7.It is brought to our notice that the order of the learned Single Judge
particularly, paragraph 16, wherein direction has been issued for rein
statement of the respondent herein, has not been implemented till date. For
better appreciation, paragraph 16 of the order is extracted hereunder:-
16.In the result the impugned order of dismissal is
set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to re-in
state the petitioner forthwith by awarding punishment of
single increment cut. It is made very clear that the peti
tioner is not entitled to any back wages as he was not
working from the date of order of dismissal. However, the
other benefits like continuity of service etc., shall be gran
Page No.4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.509 of 2014
ted to the petitioner. The order of reinstatement shall be
given effect to immediately and other benefits as stated
above shall also be worked out and given to the petitioner
in not less than two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
8.Therefore, the Appellants are directed to comply with the dir
ection issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.748 of 2008, within a
period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed with the above dir
ection. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
19.07.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
pbn
Page No.5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.509 of 2014
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
pbn
Writ Appeal No.509 of 2014
19.07.2023
Page No.6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
