Dismissed¶41

Rahul P.Nair v. The Director General

Madras HC7 Jan 2025WP/13824/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRPF dismissal reinstatement writ petition; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; judicial review of disciplinary enquiry findings; appeal and revision orders rejected; reliance on Supreme Court order in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 (The State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh); pending dues payable within two months; Madras High Court, decision 7/1/2025; Justice Vivek Kumar Singh; Rahul P.Nair v Director General CRPF and others.

What did the court decide?

Pending dues directed to be paid to the petitioner by the Competent Authority within two months; no costs imposed; connected Miscellaneous Petition (W.M.P.No.14691 of 2021) closed. ¶41

Rahul P.Nair Vs The Director General — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Pending dues directed to be paid to the petitioner by the Competent Authority within two months; no costs imposed; connected Miscellaneous Petition (W.M.P.No.14691 of 2021) closed.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the dismissal order dated 10/11/2017 and the subsequent appeal and revision orders rejecting the petitioner's appeal and revision petition should be quashed, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into CRPF service with all monetary benefits.

¶22

Court's answer

Finding the petitioner's case similar to the dispute in C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 (The State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh), this court dismisses the writ petition in light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in those Civil Appeals.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

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

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (single judge: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh) dismissed W.P.No.13824 of 2021 filed by Rahul P.Nair seeking quashing of his dismissal from CRPF service by order dated 10/11/2017 of the Commandant, 119 Battalion CRPF (Proceedings No.P.VIII-01/2017-Estt.II-119 Bn) and the subsequent appeal order of 21/2/2018 (fourth respondent), revision order of 18/7/2018 (third respondent) and revision order of 4/6/2019 (second respondent), with reinstatement and all monetary benefits. Observing that the petitioner's case and subject matter were similar to C.A.Nos.1763-1764 of 2022 (The State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh), the court relied on the Supreme Court's order in those Civil Appeals - reproduced in the judgment - which confines judicial review of disciplinary findings to tests of natural justice, some evidence, statutory rules, perversity and proportionality, and dismissed the writ petition. The Competent Authority was nonetheless directed to pay the petitioner's pending dues within two months; no costs; connected W.M.P.No.14691 of 2021 closed.

¶1

W.P.No.13824 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 7/1/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

¶6

W.P.No.13824 of 2021 a n d W.M.P.No.14691 of 2021

Rahul P.Nair

Petitioner

The Director General CRPF, CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi 110 003.

¶11

The Special Director General North East Zone, CRPF Guwahati Assam.

¶12

The Inspector General of Police

¶13

North Eastern Sector, CRPF

¶14

Stoney-Heaven, Bishop Cotton Road

¶15

Shillong, Meghalaya

¶16

The Deputy Inspector General of Police GC, CRPF, Khatkahti, Karbianglong Assam 782 480.

¶17

The Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre, CRPF, Avadi Chennai 600 054.

¶18

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

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

W.P.No.13824 of 2021

¶21

The Commandant 119 Battalion, CRPF Rowriya, Jorhat Assam. ... Respondents

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the order dated 10/11/2017 of sixth respondent in Proceedings No.P.VIII-01/2017Estt.II-119 Bn dismissing the petitioner from service and subsequent appeal order dated 21/2/2018 of fourth respondent in Proceedings No.R.XIII05/2018-EC-II, revision order dated 18/7/2018 of third respondent in Proceedings No.R-XIII-01/2018-NES-Adm-III/3226 and revision order dated 4/6/2019 of second respondent in Proceedings No.R.XIII-01/2019-NEZ-CR& Vig-1 rejecting the petitioner's appeal and revision petition and quash the same directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner's into service in CRPF with all monetary benefits.

¶23

For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Meenakshi For Respondents ... Mr.B.Rabu Manohar

¶24

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.13824 of 2021

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order dated 10/11/2017 of sixth respondent in Proceedings No.P.VIII-01/2017-Estt.II-119 Bn and subsequent appeal order dated 21/2/2018 of fourth respondent in Proceedings No.R.XIII-05/2018-EC-II, revision order dated 18/7/2018 of third respondent in Proceedings No.R-XIII-01/2018-NES-Adm-III/3226 and revision order dated 4/6/2019 of second respondent in Proceedings No.R.XIII-01/2019NEZ-CR& Vig-1 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service in CRPF with all monetary benefits.

¶30

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

¶31

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:

¶32

“17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.13824 of 2021

¶36

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 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.”

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.13824 of 2021

¶40

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.

¶41

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 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. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

7/1/2025

¶43

mvs.

¶44

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶45

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J

¶46

mvs.

¶47

¶48

The Director General

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.13824 of 2021

¶52

CRPF, CGO Complex

¶53

Lodhi Road

¶54

New Delhi 110 003. 2. The Special Director General North East Zone, CRPF

¶55

Guwahati

¶56

Assam. 3. The Inspector General of Police North Eastern Sector, CRPF

¶57

Stoney-Heaven, Bishop Cotton Road

¶58

Shillong, Meghalaya 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police GC, CRPF, Khatkahti, Karbianglong Assam 782 480. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Group Centre, CRPF, Avadi Chennai 600 054. 6. The Commandant 119 Battalion, CRPF Rowriya, Jorhat Assam.

W.P.No.13824 of 2021

7/1/2025

Page 6 of 6

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

Rahul P.Nair v. The Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul P.Nair v. The Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasikala.K Vs The Chief Internal Audit officer

Sabir Kizhakkeyil Vs the Secretary to Government

N.Althaf Vs The Commissioner of School Education

Shree G.K.Jain Higher Secondary School Vs The Commissioner

Tagore Educational Trust Vs Tamil Nadu Dr.Mgr Edical University

Thandapani Pillai and Sons Educational and Charitable Trust Vs the Registrar