Procedural safeguards, fair hearing, and compliance with statutory mandates are essential in disciplinary proceedings, and the violation of such safeguards can render the disciplinary action void.

JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, C.J.

1. The petitioner, a constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (hereafter “CISF”, for short), following disciplinary proceedings, was removed from service by an order dated 27th November 2017 of his disciplinary authority on the ground of proved misconduct. Such order of removal was made in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 34(ii) read with Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereafter, “CISF Rules”, for short).

2. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner carried such order in an appeal under Rule 46 of the CISF Rules. The appellate authority, by an order dated 5th February 2018, upheld the order of the disciplinary authority to the extent it held that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved; however, considering the length of service put in by the petitioner and liability towards his family, a lenient view was taken by the appellate authority and the penalty of removal was modified by awarding the penalty of compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefits.

3. A revision petition at the instance of the petitioner did not prove successful. The revisional authority, by its order dated 8th August 2018, dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of the appellate authority.

4. By instituting this writ petition dated 26th September 2018, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the orders of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority referred to above. He further prays that by a writ of mandamus, the respondents be directed to reinstate him in service forthwith with effect from 22nd November 2017 with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, pay fixation, seniority etc. Also, the petitioner prays for a direction on the respondents for treating the period of suspension as spent on duty for all purposes.

5. Facts as pleaded in the writ petition, which are considered relevant for a decision on this writ petition are these. The Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai, being the petitioner’s disciplinary authority, issued memorandum of charge-sheet dated 4th August 2017 under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules and called upon him to submit a written statement in his defence within 10 (ten) days. The Articles of Charge read as follows: -

“Charge Article-1

Force No. 0114500 Constable/GD Ram Sahodar, has been charged that on 13/07/2017 at time about 05.43 hrs while force members were returning from completing night shift duty a surprise checking of the them, their belongings and bus was conducted by Shri. P. S. Rawat, Assistant Commandant, Shri. Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Commandant and Intelligence Wing personnel at unit line. During checking, Constable/GD Ram Sahodar threw a roll of paper out of the bus window. When that rolled paper was retrieved and opened, a sum of Rs. 540/- (Indian Currency) was found in it. The said act of member indicates palpable violation of office order No. 487 dated 11.02.2010. The said act of the member of the force indicates his involvement in illegal gratification and also shows gross misconduct at his instance. Hence has been charged.

Sd/-

Senior Commandant

CISF Unit JNPT Sheva

Charge Article-2

Force No. 011450025 Constable/GD Ram Sahodar, is charged with habitually indulging in illegal gratification which amounts for gross misconduct. Hence has been charged.

Sd/-

Senior Commandant

CISF Unit JNPT Sheva”

6. The petitioner denied the charges, whereupon, the charges were inquired into by an inquiry officer appointed under Rule 36(5)(a) of the CISF Rules. Several witnesses deposed in support of the prosecution case and there is no dispute that the petitioner was extended full opportunity to cross-examine them. The inquiry officer submitted a report dated 31st October 2017 holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. A copy of the inquiry report wa