The High Court set aside a lower court order that quashed a penalty order against a CRPF constable and directed pension payment. The appellate bench held the single judge lacked jurisdiction, citing inordinate delay (18 years) and the imperative of discipline in uniformed forces.
Set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss W.P.(C). No. 29856 of 2005.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/15TH ASWINA, 1936
WA.No. 1948 of 2013 () IN WP(C).29856/2005
------------------------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29856/2005 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE COMMANDANT OFFICER, 58 BATTALION, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, HYDERABAD.
2. THE DEPUTY INDPSECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE INDPSECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
K.N. JANARDHANAN, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT KUZHIPARAMBIL, PERINGALA, MULAKKUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 505. CONSTABLE, 58 BATTALION, HYDERABAD.
R BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
'CR'
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------------------W.A.No.1948 of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7th day of October, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
2
W.A.No.1948/13
while he was in sentry duty. He suffered that order, which was imposed in 1987. Nearly two decades thereafter, he came to this Court, challenging the aforesaid on the premise that there was an earlier direction to consider his representation. The learned single Judge interfered with the punishment and directed payment of emoluments and pensionary benefits.
4.We have gone through the impugned judgment. With respect, we may say that it does not contain any reason for the conclusions in it. All that it said is that “considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case”, the learned single Judge was of the view that Exhibits P2 and P7 are liable to be quashed. That was rendered after noticing the plea of the establishment that the writ petitioner had not brought out any convincing reason for his act of gross mis-conduct/negligence in discharging his duties in his capacity as a member of the Force and that the petitioner had filed a writ petition after lapse of 18 years.
3
W.A.No.1948/13
examined the merits of the matter as well, rather than make an order of remit.
6.We see that while the writ petitioner was on guard duty under control command over under trial prisoners and convicts in isolation ward in the Civil Hospital, Aiswal, he, though a constable, acted negligently and mis-conducted himself by not exercising proper control in discharge of his duties, leading to the escape of a convict, Thanmawia, who made good his escape from the isolation ward. CRPF is a uniformed force. Discipline and orderliness cannot be diluted, having regard to the purpose, utility and command in CRPF. Upholding of the discipline and adherence to duty in such uniformed force can never be diluted by judicial intervention. When the competent authorities, with jurisdiction, had come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was liable to be removed from service, that ought to have been challenged within a reasonable time, that too, within the limited format of judicial review of such actions in the uniformed force. On facts, we are satisfied that the learned single Judge exceeded jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in issuing the impugned judgment.
4
W.A.No.1948/13
The writ petition was also exceptionally delayed; the writ petitioner having led the issue to remain stalemate.
In the result, this writ appeal is allowed, vacating the impugned judgment and dismissing W.P.(C).No.29856 of 2005. No costs.
Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
Sd/- (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
DG
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned single Judge exceeded jurisdiction in quashing a penalty order and ordering payment of pensionary benefits.
Whether the high delay in challenging the removal from service renders the writ application inordinate.
Whether judicial intervention should be diluted in a uniformed force like the CRPF for negligence violations.
The Commandant Officer, 58 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force
K.N. Janardhanan
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Babu Mathew P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
