Act against those taking part in ‘orderly system’: Madras HC to MHA

The “orderly system” must be eradicated by taking penal actions against higher ups who force their subordinates to do menial jobs, the Madras high court said on Friday, as it directed the MHA to act against those found indulging in such practices.

The “orderly system” must be eradicated by taking penal actions against higher ups who force their subordinates to do menial jobs, the Madras high court said on Friday, as it directed the ministry of home affairs MHA to act against those found indulging in such practices.

The ‘orderly system’ must be eradicated by taking penal actions against higher ups who force their subordinates to do menial jobs, the Madras high court said on Friday.

A single bench of justice S M Subramaniam also said the “orderly system” is a violation of Article 21 of Constitution (assuring protection of life and personal liberty), and directed the reinstatement of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable who was dismissed from service in 2014 for alleged indiscipline after he refused to carry out personal tasks for his superiors.

Policemen doing household and menial work in residences of top police officials are known as “orderlies”. Justice Subramaniam in August had directed the Tamil Nadu government and police department to ensure the practice of “orderly system” is eradicated in entirety within the next four months.

“In the event of receiving any complaint from any person regarding the colonial practice of orderlies for personal works, then actions are to be initiated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules and also under the Law,” justice Subramaniam said in his order, seen by HT.

“That apart, the salary payable to the government employee, who was made to serve as orderly, should be recovered from the Officer concerned immediately by following the procedures. Recovery of salary must be in addition to the departmental action,” he added.

The judge also directed the home ministry to take stringent action against erring officials in such cases. “The 1st (secretary, Union of India, ministry of home affairs) respondent shall ensure that the Government of India orders are effectively implemented and actions are initiated against the Higher Officials, who all are practising the colonial system of orderly in their Battalion by using the constables/combatant/other employee for their personal works either at their residence or elsewhere.”

The high court was hearing a plea of CRPF constable M Muthu who accused his seniors of pressuring him to carry out tasks and indulge in activities beyond his official duties.

In his plea, Muthu, who hails from Tamil Nadu and who joined the CRPF in 2004, alleged when he was stationed in Jharkhand, the officer commanding asked him to assist in some personal work.

“The petitioner expressed his inability to do such duties as he was interested only in performing all kinds of combatant duties applicable for constable rank in CRPF,” justice Subramaniam said, adding the constable gave a similar response to his other superiors when they approached him for such work.

“This was the incident, which created personal vengeance against the petitioner in the mind of the superior officials,” he added.

In 2014, when they were posted for election duty in Andhra Pradesh’s Nellore, the CRPF personnel used to sing and dance on every Saturday, the court said, adding, since the petitioner was shy, he did not oblige when the superiors asked him to perform.

“Thereafter, the Company Commander used to behave indifferently with the petitioner. Whenever, the Company personnel applied for leave, Company Havildar Major (CHM) pressured them to offer liquor bottles for ensuring sanction of leave,” it said.

Following such instances, a memo with five charges were filed against the petitioner by superior officials in 2014. The charges claimed he was disobedient, left campus without permission from a competent authority in a sensitive place like Jharkhand, consumed liquor and threatened to fire at a senior official, the court said.

Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service in December 2014, it said. The petitioner’s previous appeals against his dismissal were also rejected.

“After learning the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service is excessive and not in proportion with the gravity of the charges. In the present case, the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on the acceptable evidences and it seems that certain forces are created for the purpose of holding the charges as proved,” justice Subramaniam said.

The court also referred to the allegation that the petitioner threatened to fire at a company commandant. “If such an incident had indeed happened, it is a very serious offence and a criminal case is to be registered. Further, in such circumstances, the other constables and other officials standing nearby would have immediately prevented the petitioner but no such sort happened. Therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse,” he added.

The court pulled up the appellate and revisional authorities for not addressing the petitioner’s complaint against his seniors and for focussing only on confirming the punishment of dismissal.

“Such an approach of the appellate authority and the revisional authority, under no circumstances, be appreciated,” the court said.

The constables are the backbone of the force and their grievances are to be addressed and redressed in the manner known to law, the court said. “Contrarily, the officials are not expected to have a colonial mindset in the matter of practising orderlies in their personal residences or for performing their personal works,” it added.

The court said that having orderlies is directly in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which ensures the right to dignity.

“The dignity, if infringed at the instance of the powerful Higher Uniformed Authorities, then the poor subordinate, the last grade police personnel become voiceless and their life become misery, as they are forced to perform such menial job in the name of orderlies, which is undoubtedly below the dignity on the trained Uniformed Personnel, who is expected to perform the combatant duty and other law and order duties in the interest of public at large,” the court said.

“Constitutional courts are expected to realise ill effects of the situation where an organised misconduct is being committed by the higher police officials and there is no one to complain as they are the powerful officials, maintaining law and order in the society and possessing arms and ammunition and the subordinate officials, who became voiceless,” it added.