Dismissed

A. Francis(Ex-CT(GD)No.941161186) v. The Union of India

Madras HC17 Dec 2024WP/12423/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A CRPF personnel challenged a disciplinary order imposing compulsory retirement-type discharge. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in The State of Karnataka vs. Umesh holding that courts in judicial review should not re-appreciate evidence from disciplinary enquiries, the High Court dismissed the writ petition but directed payment of the petitioner's pending dues within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no costs; Competent Authority directed to pay the petitioner's pending dues within two months.

A. Francis(Ex-CT(GD)No.941161186) Vs The Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.12423 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17/12/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.No.12423 of 2022

A. Francis

... Petitioner

The Union of India

¶11

rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India

¶12

New Delhi.

¶13

The Director General of Police CRPF, New Delhi.

¶14

The Inspector General of Police CRPF, Southern Sector Road No.10 C, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad 33.

¶15

The Additional Director General of Police O/o. The Special Director General of Police South Zone, CRPF Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶16

The Deputy Inspector General Police Range HQR, CRPF Bangalore 64.

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.12423 of 2022

¶20

The Commandant – 51 BN.CRPF Lalwas, Jaipur Rajasthan 13. ...

¶21

Respondents

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶23

to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents, particularly fourth respondent's impugned order dated 17/3/2021 vide Reference No.R-XIII-31/2020-SZ-CRV and quash the same, consequently, direct the respondents to discharge the petitioner's service with all attendant benefits, such as monetary benefits, pensionary benefits and other available benefits for the service rendered on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 31/8/2020.

¶24

For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Thanjan For Respondents ... Mr.M.Karthikeyan - - - - -

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed for quashment of the impugned order dated 17/3/2021 passed by the fourth respondent in R-XIII-31/2020-SZ-CRV

¶27

and consequently, direct the respondents to discharge the petitioner's service

¶28

with all attendant benefits, such as monetary benefits, pensionary benefits Page 2 of 6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.12423 of 2022

¶31

and other available benefits for the service rendered on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 31/8/2020.

¶32

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

¶33

3.The case of the petitioner herein is similar to that of the dispute which arose in the Civil Appeals in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 (T he State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh ). In the said Civil Appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the following order:

¶34

“17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of nature justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (v) the penalty

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.12423 of 2022

¶38

is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of nature of justice. The findings of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not imagine upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.”

¶39

4 . The subject matter in issue is also similar to that of the Civil Appeals filed in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022, in which the aforesaid order has been passed.

¶40

In the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeals as stated supra, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.12423 of 2022

¶44

Competent Authority is directed to give the pending dues to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No costs.

17/12/2024

mvs.

Index : Yes / No

Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶50

¶51

The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India New Delhi.

¶52

The Director General of Police CRPF, New Delhi.

¶53

The Inspector General of Police CRPF, Southern Sector Road No.10 C, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad 33.

¶54

The Additional Director General of Police O/o. The Special Director General of Police South Zone, CRPF Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶55

The Deputy Inspector General Police Range HQR, CRPF Bangalore 64.

¶56

The Commandant – 51 BN.CRPF Lalwas, Jaipur Rajasthan 13.

¶57

Page 5 of 6

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.P.No.12423 of 2022

¶60

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J

mvs.

W.P.No.12423 of 2022

17/12/2024

Page 6 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A. Francis(Ex-CT(GD)No.941161186) v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Francis(Ex-CT(GD)No.941161186) v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Nagajothi Vs The State of TamilNadu

Bharath Kumar Jain Vs State Represented by

D.Vimala Vs the Director

Dr.S.Ganga Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.v.Sathasivam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Senthil Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to The Government of Tamil Nadu