HC upholds removal of CRPF man for hiding TC

Chennai

Observing that persons in uniformed services are expected to be up-right and disciplined and any violation of the same while on duty cannot be treated lightly, the Madras High Court has dismissed a plea moved by CRPF constable challenging his compulsory retirement for hiding his transfer papers which arrived through telex.

Justice V Bhavani Subbaroyan while noting that this court is not inclined to interfere with CRPF’s order, said, “The uniformed force which guards the nation should be more vigilant and should be above the common man and when the personnel in the uniformed forces if transferred from one place to another has to immediately report for duty.”

“Hence the petitioner’s act of concealing the said message from the higher officials to whom the message has been sent cannot be condoned. Hence the punishment of removal as modified into ‘compulsory retirement’ by the CRPF, when the matter was remitted back by this high court to impose any other punishment, seems to be in consonance with Rule 27 of CRPF rules 1955,” the judge added. As per the case, P Swaminathan joined CRPF as constable on May 10, 1988. He was posted at Chandigarh and Delhi and on promotion, he was transferred to the D/2 Signal, CRPF, Avadi. However, on October 23, 1996 the Signal Battalion, CRPF, Hyderabad directed the Officer Commanding in Avadi to relieve the petitioner on December 14, 1996 immediately without further delay. However, Swaminathan on receipt of the messages reportedly hid it.

Thereafter, he challenged the said Telex messages and secured favourable interim injunction restraining CRPF from relieving him from Madras. He had contended that he had only removed spare copies of the radio messages dated October 23 and December 12, 1996 related to his transfer and hence there remained no malafide intention in removing those radio messages.

However, CRPF had contended that the misconduct committed by the petitioner is very serious in nature even in the absence of any malafide and hence it is liable to be dealt with appropriate punishment. If no serious punishment is imposed on the petitioner, it would definitely demoralise the members of the force and would encourage the others also to indulge in nefarious activities to suit their purposes, Central Government Standing Counsel Sunita Kumari appearing for CRPF submitted.

She also noted that there is no specific direction issued by this court neither in the writ appeal nor in the writ petition regarding the punishment to be accorded to Swaminathan.