Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Subrata Nath – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-7940 of 2022 Arising Out of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3524-25 of 2022 and Civil Appeal Nos. 7941-7942 of 2022 Arising Out of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 11021-22 of 2022
Decided On : 23-11-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate, For the Respondent.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in a disciplined force, the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, and the gravity of established misconduct in determining the appropriate penalty.

Headnote:
Negligence and Dereliction of Duty - Central Industrial Security Force - CISF Rules, 2001 - Rule 32, Schedule-I - The court discussed the negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent, the evidence presented, and the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in a disciplined force and the gravity of the established misconduct. The court also highlighted the principles of natural justice and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was charged with negligence and dereliction of duty for failing to prevent the theft of copper wire while on duty. The Inquiry Officer found both charges against the respondent to be proved, leading to the imposition of a penalty of dismissal from service.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, emphasizing the importance of maintaining discipline in a disciplined force and the gravity of the established misconduct. The court noted that the respondent's past conduct, coupled with the serious offence of theft, justified the penalty of dismissal from service.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should interfere with the punishment imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority, considering the gravity of the established misconduct and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence in a departmental inquiry. The court emphasized that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence unless the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the court or is found to be flawed for specific reasons.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench and the order of the learned Single Judge, while restoring the findings and conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority. The penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent was deemed commensurate with the gross negligence and dereliction of duty on his part.

JUDGMENT

Hima Kohli, J. - 1-2 By this order, we propose to decide two appeals preferred by the Union of India and the connected appeals preferred by the private respondent against the common judgment and order dated 9th September, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in FMA No.679 of 2019 and FMA No. 680 of 2019.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in the Civil Appeals shall be referred to. The respondent joined the Central Industrial Security Force¹[For short 'CISF'] as a Constable on 26th February, 1994. On 7th November, 2007, the respondent was detailed for 'C' shift duty from 21:00 hours on 7th November, 2007 to 05:00 hours on 8th November, 2007 at Alif Nagar Scrap yard situated in the Garden Reach area of the Kolkata Port. On the next day, i.e., on 8th November, 2007, the local police intercepted a Tata-407 truck loaded with approximately 800 kg. (approx.) of copper wires outside the port premises and informed the CISF about the said incident on learning that the copper wires had been removed from the Kolkata Port Trust area. It transpired that the said copper wires had been removed from the scrap yard of Alif Nagar Kolkata Port in the duration when the respondent was on duty. The respondent was placed under suspension and charge sheeted, vide Memorandum dated 7th December, 2007. Following are the two articles of charge framed against the respondent:

'STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO. 941400817

CONSTABLE SUBRATA NATH OF CISF UNIT KoPT KOLKATA.

Article of Charge- I

That the said No.941400817 Constable Subrata Nath of CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata ("C" Coy) while perforating "C" Shift duty from 2100 hrs on 07.11.2007 to 0500 hrs on 08.11.2007 at Alif Nagar Scrap Yard with Arms and Ammunition has failed to prevent theft of copper wire weighing about 800 Kgs which were laying with other bundles of copper wire at Alif Nagar Scrap Yard of KoPT under the security coverage of the said No. 941400817 Constable Subrata Nath.

The above act on the part of No. 941400817 Constable Subrata Nath amounts to gross negligence and dereliction of duty being member of a disciplined Force.

Article of Charge-II

That the said No. 941400817 Constable Subrata Nath of CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata during the period of his 13 years sendee in CISF has been involved himself in various delinquencies and thereby awarded 08 (Eight) punishments. Even then he did not mend himself and has developed an incorrigible character.'

4. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry in respect of the above charges. During the inquiry, eight prosecution witnesses were examined. However, the respondent did not produce any witness in his defence. After examining the evidence and the defence of the respondent, the Inquiry Officer held that both the charges framed against the respondent were duly proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a Notice to Show Cause to the respondent in relation to the inquiry report, in response whereto, he submitted a representation. Vide order dated 27th November, 2008, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Commandant rejected the representation of the respondent. It was observed that the statements of the prosecution witnesses corroborated with the scene of the crime and established that theft of copper wires from the Alif Nagar Scrap Yard had taken place when the respondent was on duty at the duty post. Further, the prosecution witnesses had proved that the respondent was found to be alert at the duty post by nine different checking officers, who had checked him in the intervening night on 7th/8th November, 2007, despite which, he did not report the criminal activities in his duty area.

5. Rejecting the plea taken by the respondent that the FIR had recorded the occurrence of the offence at 1530 hours on 8th November, 2007 which indicated that the theft had not taken place during his duty hours, the Disciplinary Authority held thus:

'12. After taking into account all the above aspect, I am of the op