The discretionary power of the decision-making authority in imposing punishment is exposed to judicial interference only if exercised in a manner that is grossly disproportionate to the fault. The court also emphasized the importance of discipline in the police force and the discretionary power of the appellate authority to examine the penalty imposed.

Headnote:
disciplinary action - Central Industrial Security Force - Rule 47(2)(c)(i), Rule 31(a), Rule 52 - The court discussed the disciplinary action taken against a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force for misconduct and assault on an officer. The court examined the provisions of Rule 47(2)(c)(i), Rule 31(a), and Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 1969, and the CISF Rules, 2001, to determine the quantum of punishment and the power of the appellate authority to examine the penalty imposed. The court emphasized the importance of discipline in the police force and the discretionary power of the decision-making authority in imposing punishment.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was found sleeping on duty and subsequently charged with misconduct and assault on an officer. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction of pay, which was later enhanced to dismissal from service. The High Court set aside the dismissal and remitted the case to the Appellate Authority for re-examination. The Appellate Authority again imposed the penalty of dismissal, which was later set aside by the High Court, and the punishment of reduction of pay was restored.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the punishment of dismissal was not grossly disproportionate to the quantum of the offence and upheld the order of dismissal. The court also directed the appellants to make payments of subsistence allowance and salary to the respondent for the relevant periods.
Issues: The issues involved the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent, the entitlement to subsistence allowance and salary, and the power of the appellate authority to examine the penalty imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretionary power of the decision-making authority in imposing punishment is exposed to judicial interference only if exercised in a manner that is grossly disproportionate to the fault. The court also emphasized the importance of discipline in the police force and the discretionary power of the appellate authority to examine the penalty imposed.
Final Decision: The court upheld the order of dismissal imposed by the Appellate Authority and directed the appellants to make payments of subsistence allowance and salary to the respondent for the relevant periods.

JUDGMENT :

Leave granted.

2. This case has a checkered history. The respondent - Managobinda Samantaray, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), detailed on a ‘C’ shift duty on the intervening night of 3rd and 4th of January 2000, for patrolling between Watch Tower No. 5 and Watch Tower No. 6 of National Thermal Power Corporation Plant, Kaniha was found to be sleeping at Watch Tower No. 5 by Officer ASI/Exe. B. Panda. It is alleged that the respondent had abused, misbehaved and assaulted the officer on the right shoulder with a short lathi. ASI/Exe. B. Panda was taken to the hospital for treatment.

3. The respondent was placed under suspension on 4th January 2000, and was served with the charge sheet. In the enquiry the charges were established and proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 15th July 2000 while agreeing that the charges were proved, took a lenient view and imposed penalty of reduction of pay by two stages, from Rs.3425/- to Rs.3275/- in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with immediate effect. Further, it was directed the respondent would not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of three years, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The period of suspension commencing from 4th January 2000 till the receipt of the order would be treated as non-duty for all purposes. For this period the respondent would not be entitled to any more pay and allowances except the subsistence allowance.

4. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority on consideration issued Show Cause Notice dated 21st November 2000, under Rule 47(2) (c)(i),¹[47. Consideration of Appeals –

(2) In case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 31 the appellate authority shall consider, -

(i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty;] read with 31(a),²[31. Nature of Penalties – The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a member of the Force, namely –

(a) Dismissal;] of Central Industrial Security Force, Rules 1969 for enhancement of punishment to that of dismissal from service. The respondent was directed to explain why the proposed enhancement of punishment should not be imposed. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority passed an order dated 23rd January 2001, dismissing the respondent from service.

5. The respondent had, thereupon, preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court of Odisha-O.J.C. No. 556 of 2001, which was allowed vide judgment dated 17th October 2011, inter-alia, holding that the order dated 23rd January 2001 was improper and had violated the principles of natural justice as the Appellate Authority had failed to notice and consider the application filed by the respondent seeking extension of time to file reply to the Show Cause Notice. On perusal of the records it was noticed that as per the order sheet the draft order was prepared by the subordinate staff and was simply approved by the Appellate Authority without due consideration and application of mind. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority to re-examine the case afresh after giving an opportunity to the respondent to file reply. The respondent was given six weeks’ time to file reply. The judgment of the High Court dated 17.10.2001 was not challenged and has attained finality.

6. Pursuant to the remand, the Appellate Authority examined the matter and, on consideration, passed an order of dismissal on 18th February 2012. This order on the question of the charges and quantum of punishment observed:-