WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page1 of 23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 17.08.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 21.08.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WP No.25406 of 2011 R.Shanmuganathan ..Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills, Gayathri Hills, Hyderabad-33. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Headquarters, Central Reserve Police Force, Avadi, Chennai-65. 4. The Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force, 142, Battalion, Joanki Nagar, Golghat District, Assam. ..Respondent(s) Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certioarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in No.R.XIII.33/10-ADM-7 dated 03.01.2011 confirming the order passed by the third respondent in No.R.XIII.4/ 2010-EC.3 dated 08.07.2010 and the order of removal from service passed by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page2 of 23 the fourth respondent in No.P.VIII-16/2006-Estt-II dated 31.01.2010 and quash the said orders and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages and continuity of service. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajan Malhotra for M/s.S.Tonishwaran For Respondent(s) : Dr.D.Simon Senior Central Govt.Standing Counsel ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records . 2. Briefly, put the case of the petitioner is that he was issued with Memorandum dated 30.09.2006 framing the following article of charge :- ARTICLE -I That the said No.921162954 CT/GD.R.Shanmuganathan of HQ/142 VB ( Now posted in F/142 BN, CRPF) while functioning as CT/GD has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act – 1949 in that, after availing 06 days Casual leave w.e.f. 23.08.2004 to 31.08.2004 he wilfully overstayed from leave with effect from 01.09.2004 (FN) to 26.05.2006 total 633 days without prior permission/sanction from the Competent Authority”. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page3 of 23 3. It is the case of the petitioner that though he has been issued with the aforesaid Article of charge claiming he had over stayed sanctioned casual leave from 23.08.2004 to 31.08.2004, he did not seek for being sanctioned any casual leave; that he was forced to go on leave by the 4th respondent; that the 4th respondent not only did not sanction the Earned Leave sought for by him vide letter dated 13.08.2004 to undergo medical treatment, also did not relieve him from the duty to join at 101 RAF; and that the 4th respondent thereafter initiated the disciplinary proceeding claiming that he had abstained from duty from 01.09.2004 to 26.05.2006 i.e.633 days after expiry of sanctioned 6 days casual leave, without considering the medical certificate produced by him which clearly show that he was taking treatment at Government General Hospital, Chennai; after being referred by the Chief Medical Officer of the respondent Hospital, while staying in the official residential accommodation provided to him. 4. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that when the respondent sought to take action against him on the basis of Memorandum dated 30.09.2006, contrary to the Rules and medical certificate produced by him and also the manner in which the enquiry proceeding was held; he had approached this Court by filing writ petition vide W.P.No.9125 of 2009; that this Court by order dated 16.11.2009 in W.P.No.9125 of 2009 directed him to submit explanation within https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page4 of 23 15 days; that he had filed writ appeal against the said order vide W.A.No.1770 of 2009; that the said writ appeal was also dismissed by this Court on 22.12.2009 directing him to submit his explanation within four weeks from 22.12.2009; that he thereafter submitted his explanation on 14.01.2010; that the 4th respondent, without applying his mind to the explanation submitted by him on 14.01.2009, and considering his explanation sent by fax on 04.01.2009 had passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2010, imposing punishment of removal from service; and that the aforesaid impugned order has been passed by the 4th respondent without taking into consideration the leave applications submitted by him along with medical certificate periodically, which remained unconsidered by the 4th respondent. 5. The petitioner further contended that since, the 4th respondent while passing the impugned order failed to consider he having sought for being sanctioned with 60 days Earned Leave and thereafter having sought for being relieved to join at 101 RAF, could not have initiated action alleging absence from duty 01.09.2004 till 26.05.2006, and that the aforesaid absence is a misconduct warranting initiation of action under the CRPF Act, 1949 ( for short Act, 1949) and Rules framed thereunder being CRPF Rules 1955( for short Rules, 1955). https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page5 of 23 6. It is also the further case of the petitioner that not only the 4th respondent did not consider the leave application submitted by him and medical certificate furnished by him, which clearly shows that he was undergoing medical treatment due to which requested for sanction to Earned Leave and also the extension of leave, the third respondent also failed to consider the aforesaid aspects while considering the appeal filed by him against the order of the 4th respondent; that the second respondent further erred in confirming the order of the 4th respondent and 3rd respondent while dismissing the revision filed by him under Rule 29 of the Act, 1949 and the Rules 1955. 7. The petitioner also contended that as he was not provided which sufficient opportunity to examine the defence witnesses before the Enquiry Officer, and the 4th respondent having not granted time sought for submitting his explanation, the said order passed by the 4th respondent awarding with punishment of removal from service as confirmed by the 3rd and 2nd respondent respectively by rejecting the appeal and also the revision respectively, are liable to be set aside. 8. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents is filed. 9. The respondents by the counter affidavit filed mainly contended that the petitioner never suffered any injury as claimed by him while discharging https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page6 of 23 duties in Tripura for him to continue the treatment at Avadi or in Government Hospital, Chennai; that there is no entry of the petitioner sustaining injury recorded in his service record; that the petitioner was medically categorised SHAPE-1 as per the AME check and passed all Physical Endurance Tests being conducted every year; that the claim of the petitioner of pain in his left arm gathering aggravated and he having undergone treatment regularly in the Station Hospital CRPF Avadi is incorrect; that the petitioner himself vide application dated 13.08.2004 requested for grant of 30 days leave for self- treatment and for his son; that on the said request not being considered, due to exigencies of service, he was sanctioned causal leave for 6 days with effect from 23.08.2004 to 31.08.2004 due to exigencies of service; that the claim of the petitioner of being compulsorily sent on causal leave is incorrect and is denied; that the petitioner by his application for sanction of leave dated 13.08.2004 had stated that he is not mentally prepared to proceed to Jammu and Kashmir; that the petitioner even before expiry of his six days Casual Leave sanctioned made a request for sanction of 60 days Earned Leave vide letter dated 27.08.2004 that the aforesaid actions of the petitioner only goes to show that he was not willing to join at the transferred post i.e.at Anantnag, Jammu & Kashmir. 10. The respondents further contended that the claim of the petitioner of submitting medical certificate in Form No.IV, undergoing treatment, and out https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page7 of 23 patient discharge tickets of Government General Hospital at Chennai does not show he taking any medical treatment on a regular basis; that the petitioner without submitting any supporting documents such as medical report and test report, cannot claim that the 2nd respondent, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider the medical certificates produced by him; and that the 2nd respondent had duly considered all the medical certificate produced by the petitioner, which does not show the petitioner undergoing any treatment for such a long duration and accordingly, rejected the said contention; 11. The respondents also contended that if only the petitioner had availed continued treatment beyond 60 days, the said treatment is required to be reviewed by the Board of Medical Officers of the respondent, in order to issue medical certificate to ascertain as to whether the treatment being availed is genuine or not; that though the petitioner had claimed that he was having pain in the left elbow, since, the documents submitted by the petitioner were only OPD tickets and from General Physicians and not of orthopaedic consultant or doctor, the same was found to be bogus and were not considered by the competent authority. 12. The respondents also contend that the 142 Battalion of which, the petitioner is a member had moved out from GS Campus, Avadi to Verinag, Anantnag ( Jammu and Kashmir) to perform Amarnath Yatra duties, as well as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page8 of 23 the counter - insurgency duties and for law and order duties in that State; that Unit Head Quarters of 142 Battalion at GS Campus, Avadi being closed on 05.10.2004, the petitioner cannot claim of he not being allowed to join duty at Avadi, thus, the petitioner had overstayed the sanctioned leave i.e. (casual leave) and had remained absent without proper sanction the leave from 01.09.2004 to 26.05.2006; and that the aforesaid unauthorised absence by the petitioner is an offence under Section 10(m) of the Act, 1949, liable for punishment under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1949. 13. The respondents further contend that on this Court setting aside the final order dated 20.11.2007 and remitting the matter back to the 4th respondent, by order dated 21.11.2008 in W.P.(MD)No.10799 of 2007, the 4th respondent issued show cause notice dated 25.04.2009; that the petitioner once again challenged the said show cause notice by filing writ petition vide W.P.No.9125 of 2009, claiming that this Court has ordered a denova enquiry; and that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice is contrary to the order; that this Court, noting that by earlier order dated 20.11.2007 it had only directed the respondents to pass an order afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, held that the petitioner wanted to prolong the enquiry by interdicting at every stage of the proceeding and dismissed the writ petition; that on the said order being confirmed vide W.A.No.1770 of 2009, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 14.01.2009 and that the 4th respondent, by considering the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page9 of 23 explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed a speaking order dated 31.01.2010. 14. The respondents further contend that aggrieved by the final order of the disciplinary authority/ the 4th respondent dated 31.01.2010, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the third respondent on 26.02.2010; that the Appellate Authority after examining the matter thoroughly rejected the appeal vide order dated 08.07.2010; that the petitioner thereafter had also availed further remedy of revision under Rule 29 of Rules 1955 by filing revision before the 2nd respondent; and that the second respondent, by considering the said revision, had passed a detailed order vide proceeding dated 03.01.2011, holding that there are no cogent reasons to interfere with the order of the 4th respondent, as affirmed by the 3rd respondent. 15. The respondents also further contended that the petitioner being a member of the discipline force was not willing to discharge duties, at the place of posting i.e. at Verinag, Anantnag in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and intended to stay at GC Campus, Avadi, despite his Battalian moving out from the said place on the invented grounds of undergoing medical treatment for an injury which he claimed having suffered while discharging duties at Tripura, without there being any medical records to the said effect, notwithstanding the fact that any injury if suffered while on duty would have resulted in a Court of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page10 of 23 enquiry apart from the petitioner not being eligible to be inducted in the new raising unit i.e. 142 Battalion , Avadi. 16. Contenting as above, the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 29.07.2022 in W.P.No.10813 of 2015 and seek for dismissal of the writ petition. 17. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 18. While the issue involved in the present writ petition relates to petitioner’s overstay of the leave and abstaining from duties without principle sanction from the competent authority from 01.09.2004 to 26.05.2006, it is to be noted that the petitioner being a member of the Uniformed and Disciplined Force and requiring to discharge duties as specified in Rule 25 of the Rules 1955, not only sought to remain at a place of his convenience, acting contrary to the purpose and object of the recruitment, but also contravened the provisions of Act, by remaining absent without leave or sufficient cause and overstayed the leave granted to him. On the other hand, when the respondent sought to initiate action against him, the petitioner by approaching this Court an multiple occasions was successful in preventing the respondent from initiating any action under the provisions of the Act or the Rules of 1955 on one ground or the other till December, 2009. It is only after this Court directing the petitioner to submit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page11 of 23 explanation to the show cause notice by order dated 16.11.2009 in W.P.No.9125 of 2009, did the petitioner submit his explanation on 14.01.2010. 19. While the petitioner by the aforesaid explanation submitted, had claimed of he being forced to go on casual leave without even asking for the same, it is to be noted that the petitioner, having sought for sanctioning 60 days Earned Leave vide his letter dated 13.08.2004 to undergo medical treatment for himself and his son, and the said request not having been considered by the respondents, due exigencies, it can only be inferred that the petitioner being granted casual leave for only 6 days instead of Earned Leave; thus, the claim of the petitioner that he was forced to go on leave by the 4th respondent as disciplinary action was sought to be initiated action against him, wherein he would be the key witness, appears to this Court to be an invented ground to cause prejudice against the 4th respondent before this Court. 20. 20. Further, the claim of the petitioner of being forced to go on casual leave is to be accepted as correct, then the petitioner ought to have joined the duty on expiry of the forced casual leave. Instead, the petitioner even before expiring of the 6 days casual leave on 31.08.2004, letter dated 27.08.2004, once again requested for grant of Earned Leave atleast 30 days, if not 60 days. The petitioner by the said letter not only sought for being granted Earned Leave of atleast 30 days, but admitted the fact of he being allowed to go on casual leave https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page12 of 23 for 6 days. Thus, the claim of the petitioner to the contrary cannot be accepted as a valid. 21. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner of having suffered an injury while working in Tripura and the extracts entries diary relied upon by him to show that he was undergoing treatment for injury suffered to his elbow, to claim that his absence/overstay is for sufficient cause, the extract of entry made in his diary records that the petitioner “as an old case, injury left elbow in 1992.” Thus, the claim of the petitioner of undergoing treatment for injury sustained him in 1992, in 2004 and for the said reason he having sought for sanction of leave for 60/30 days can only be considered as for the purpose of being stay put at Avadi and not to move to join 101 RAF or move to Verinag in Jammu and Kashmir State along with his Battalion. Further, if only the petitioner had suffered any injury, he would have been entitled for certain benefits for the said wound/ injury as per the Rules. In the absence of the petitioner placing on record any material to show that he having received any injury while on duty and the same being recorded in his service record, the said claim made by the petitioner is also to be considered as invented to bolster up his false claim of taking treatment requiring him to stay at GC Headquarters at Avadi. 22. Since, the scope of judicial review in a challenge to Disciplinary Authority order as affirmed in appeal is limited, impugned order is passed in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page13 of 23 violation of the principles of natural justice, claiming that the petitioner was not provided with the Enquiry Officer Report for him to submit his explanation to the Disciplinary Authority for him to pass the order dated 31.01.2010. However, a reading of the order dated 31.01.2010 passed by the 4th respondent categorically shows the petitioner having been provided with a copy of the Enquiry Officer Report through the Officer commanding on 17.10.2007 and the petitioner being granted 15 days time to submit his reply. Further, the fact of petitioner being served with the aforesaid Enquiry Officer Report is also evident from the letter dated 17.10.2007 addressed by the petitioner, by which he had sought for 30 days Earned Leave for him to submit his representation/ defence in connection with the disciplinary enquiry. 23. Thus, the contention now urged before this Court of the petitioner being denied opportunity cannot be accepted as a genuine claim. If only the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the Enquiry Report, that should have been the first ground of challenge in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the third respondent. However, on this Court querying with the counsel appearing for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had taken the said plea either in appeal or in revision or in the writ petition filed before this Court, the answer was negative. This only goes to show that the said plea now taken before this Court is only to bring the present writ petitioner within the scope of judicial review i.e., i) disciplinary proceeding initiated is contrary to statutory Rules; ii) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page14 of 23 that the order of punishment is passed by the authority, who lacks jurisdiction; iii) violation of principles of natural justice; iv) and punishment awarded is harsh and shocks the conscience of the Court, However, as noted hereinabove, since, the petitioner at no point of time had raised of he having been denied opportunity, he cannot be permitted to raise the said plea for the first time at the time of argument without the said plea being raised in the grounds of the writ petition. [see Raj Kumar Dixit vs. M/s.Vijaya Kumar Gauri Shankar – (2015) 9 SCC 345.] 24. Further, while the petitioner had claimed that though he was willing to join 101 RAF and sought for being relieved from 142 Battalion and it is the 4th respondent who did not issue relieving orders, to enable him to join in 101 RAF, it is to be noted that in absence of being issued with relieving order by the competent authority, the petitioner is required to report to the concerned officiating commandant of the 142 Battalion at GC Avadi, cannot on his own volition claim that on account of non being relieved, he remained at GC, Avadi, without attending duties to justify his unauthorised absence from duties. 25. On the other hand, the documents placed on record by the petitioner in the form of additional typed set of papers filed on 1st March, 2024 would go to show that the petitioner was only seeking for sanction of leave extension and for attachment for six months to take regular treatment of physiotherapy at https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page15 of 23 Chennai. The aforesaid documents as filed by the petitioner itself shows that the petitioner was not willing to join 101 RAF and instead sought for his continuation in 142 Battalion and to remain stayed at Chennai. In the absence of request made by the petitioner not being considered by the competent authority, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to report back to duty. However, the petitioner, neither reported to duties at its headquarters nor obtained any relieving orders to join at his new place of posting i.e. 102 RAF and on his own accord, overstayed his 6 days casual leave which expired on 31.08.2004. 26. Thus, the claim of the petitioner of he was not being relieved by the 4th respondent to join his new place of posting and that he was always ready and willing to join the new place of posting i.e.101 RAF cannot be accepted as a genuine claim, for this Court to hold that it is due to the action of the 4th respondent, the petitioner was prevented from joining the duties in 101 RAF or moving along with 142 Battalion posted to Verinag, Anantnag ( Jammu and Kasmir) to perform Amarnath Yatra ( Jammu and Kasmir) 27. It is settled to position of law that in disciplinary proceeding, the Court is only required to see as to whether there is some evidence to prove the charge. The sufficiency or otherwise is best left to the discretion of the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion, as to whether on the basis of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page16 of 23 the available evidence, the authority could have awarded the punishment. The High Court in a challenge to the order of the disciplinary authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which has been affirmed by the appellate authority cannot act as the second Court of appeal by undertaking re appreciation/reevaluation of such evidence by substituting the findings recorded with its own findings and on the basis of the same altering the punishment. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. K.G.Soni – (2006) SCC 794, dealing with the scope of judicial review of Administrator’s decision with regard to awarding of punishment observed as under :- “14. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury's case (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 15. To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page17 of 23 impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. 16. The above position was recently reiterated in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank vs. Munna Lal Jain 17. The High Court has not kept the correct position in view. It has not even indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate and why it considered the misconduct to be not serious”. 29. Since in the facts of the present case, the 4th respondent, being the disciplinary authority, having found that the petitioner had overstayed the sanctioned leave and remained absent from duties from 01.09.2004 to 26.05.2006 i.e. 633 days and the petitioner being a member of the Uniformed and Disciplinary Force, the said conduct of the petitioner in remaining absent without sanctioned leave is to be considered as an offence as defined under Section 10 (m) of the Act, 1949 for which, the respondent authorities are empowered to initiate action and to award punishment as provided under the Act, 1949. Since, the respondents, having initiated action and, by considering the material placed on record, the enquiry proceedings having found that the evidence led by the petitioner do not disclosing sufficient cause for having https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page18 of 23 overstayed the leave granted and abstained from duty for 633 days, while awarding the punishment as provided under the Act, 1949 and Rules, 1955, the said order cannot be said to be vitiated or having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, for the said order to be interdicted by this Court. 30. The Apex Court in Union of India & Others vs. Diler Singh - (2016) 3 SCC 71, after referring to the earlier decision in Union of India vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (2005) 13 SCC 228 held that in exercise of power under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1949, punishment of dismissal can be imposed. 31. The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision also dealt with the proportionality of punishment and referring to the decisions in Om Kumar vs. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386, Union of India vs. G.Ganayutham – (1997) 7 SCC 463 and Union of India and another vs. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari (2006) 10 SCC 388, has observed as under :- “ 25…….When a member of the disciplined force deviates to such an extent from the discipline and behaves in an untoward manner which is not conceived of, it is difficult to hold that the punishment of dismissal as has been imposed is disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page19 of 23 26. We are inclined to think so as a member of the disciplined force, the respondent was expected to follow the rules, have control over his mind and passion, guard his instincts and feelings and not allow his feelings to fly in fancy. It is not a mild deviation which human nature would grant some kind of lenience. It is a conduct in public which has compelled the authority to think and, rightly so,that the behaviour is totally indisciplined. The respondent, if we allow ourselves to say so, has given indecent burial to self-control, diligence and strength of will-power. A disciplined man is expected, to quote a few lines from Mathew Arnold:- “We cannot kindle when we will The fire which in the heart resides, The spirit bloweth and is still, In mystery our soul abides: But tasks in hours of insight will’d Can be through hours of gloom fulfill’d. Though the context is slightly different, yet we have felt, it is worth reproducing. 32. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R.Dhanasekaran vs. Union of India, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and 4 Others, dated 29.07.2022, dealing with similar contention has held as under :- “12. Members of the uniformed Forces cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of the duties enjoined on these Forces. Such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of the Forces. In such Forces, desertion or unauthorised absence is a serious matter. The only issue to be considered is that whether such uniformed personnel remain absent on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page20 of 23 certain genuine grounds or otherwise. If the uniformed personnel is able to establish that he remained unauthorisedly absent on certain genuine grounds, which is acceptable to the disciplinary authority, then alone a lenient view is possible, but, not otherwise. 15. False medical certificates affects the public administration, mostly, result in inefficiency in administration. If employees proceed on medical leave based on the false medical certificates and such practice is allowed to continue then the employees will try to do so, which would ultimately cause prejudice to the interests of the public, which is an unconstitutional act. Therefore, the issuance of false certificates to Government employees/uniformed personnel is an important issue, which is to be addressed by the competent authorities to the Medical Council of India and to the medical institutions, wherefrom such doctors are issuing false medical certificates for getting monetary considerations and without conducting proper medical examination. 16. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the office of the respondents repeatedly directed the petitioner to report for duty and an alternate option was also provided to the petitioner to take treatment in CRPF Government Hospital or nearest Group Centre/Units/Offices. When the petitioner has not chosen to take treatment in CRPF Government Hospital or nearest Group Centre, then the bonafide is not established and the genuinity on the part of the petitioner cannot be trusted upon. Thus, the intentional overstay is established in this case. When an intentional overstay/unauthorised absence is established, then there is no possibility of taking a lenient view either by the disciplinary authority or by the Court of law. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the penalty imposed on the petitioner.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page21 of 23 33. A conspectus of the above decision when applied to the facts of the case leads this Court to the conclusion that the act of overstay of leave by the petitioner for 633 days in a disciplined force is a grave misconduct not only warrants initiation of disciplinary action but also required to be dealt sternly. Thus, the 4th respondent authority having initiated disciplinary action and having followed the due procedure before awarding the punishment to the petitioner and the said order having been affirmed in Appeal by the 3rd respondent and further Revision being repeated by the 2nd respondent by order dated 03.01.2011, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders do not call for any interference keeping in view of the limited scope of judicial review. 34. In view of the above, the challenge to the impugned proceedings in the present writ petition has to fail. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions if any, stand closed. 21-08-2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No KKD https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page22 of 23 To 1. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills, Gayathri Hills, Hyderabad-33. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Headquarters, Central Reserve Police Force, Avadi, Chennai-65. 4. The Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force, 142, Battalion, Joanki Nagar, Golghat District, Assam. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.25406 of 2011 __________ Page23 of 23 T.VINOD KUMAR, J., KKD Pre-Delivery Order in WP No. 25406 of 2011 21-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis