Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
NITIN W. SAMBRE, ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
Laxman Manikrao Tonge – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 104 of 2012
Decided on : 09-08-2024
Dismissal - Service Law - CISF Rules - Article 311 - The court found that the dismissal of the petitioner without a proper inquiry violated principles of natural justice and the provisions of the CISF Rules, particularly Rule 39, which requires satisfactory reasons for bypassing an inquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable, was dismissed from service without a departmental inquiry after being arrested on serious criminal charges. He challenged the dismissal, claiming violation of natural justice and constitutional rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the dismissal was arbitrary, lacking justifiable reasons for not conducting an inquiry, and violated the petitioner's right to a fair hearing.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner without a departmental inquiry was just and proper under the CISF Rules and constitutional provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere registration of an offense does not justify dismissal without inquiry, and the disciplinary authority must provide satisfactory reasons for bypassing the inquiry process.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the dismissal orders are quashed, reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service and back-wages.
JUDGMENT :
Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.
The challenge is raised to the order dated 18-11-2011 passed by respondent No.3-Deputy Inspector General/Airport Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby confirmed the order dated 29-05-2011 passed by respondent No.4-Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Ahmedabad dismissing the petitioner without conducting a departmental enquiry.
2. It further appears that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner challenged the said order in revision before respondent No.5- Inspector General/APS office of the Special Director, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi. However, respondent No.5 vide order dated 31-07-2012 dismissed the revision. The petitioner also challenges the said order by amending the petition.
3. Succinctly, the facts are as under :-
(ii) On releasing bail, he had preferred the appeal against the dismissal order before respondents Nos.2 and 3 on 28-09-2011, requesting them to withdraw the dismissal order dated 29-05-2011. However, without giving any opportunity for a hearing, his appeal was summarily rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 18-11-2011. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. During the pendency of this petition, on 20-03-2012, the petitioner had preferred a revision application against the said order before respondent No.5-The Special Director General/Airport Sector, Central Industrial Security Force.
5. Respondent No.5 rejected the revision by order dated 31-07-2012. The petitioner also challenged the said order by amending the petition and adding the prayer to set aside the said order.
6. Respondents Nos.2 to 5 oppose the claim of the petitioner, contending that Crime No.93/2011 was registered against the petitioner on 24-05-2011 U/Ss. 302, 498-A, 304-B and 506 r/w 34 of the I. P. C. and the intimation to that effect was received by respondent No.4 from the concerned police station. Based on the said information, the petitioner was suspended from 24-05-2011. The petitioner was in jail. Therefore, the respondent disciplinary authority was of the view that it was not possible to hold a departmental enquiry in jail premises and, thus, considering the procedure prescribed under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short, “the CISF Rules”), dismissed the petitioner under Rule 39. The said dismissal order was served on him on 30-05-2011.
7. On 27-09-2011, the petitioner preferred the appeal against the dismissal order before the appellate authority, which came to be rejected summarily as it was preferred beyond the limitation period. It is further averred that the action taken by the respondent authority against the petitioner was strictly in accordance with the CISF Rules and cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. They denied the rest of the contentions in the petition. Lastly, it is stated that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, urged for dismissal of the petition.
8. On April 1st, 2013, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, ‘RULE’ was granted and made returnable early.
9. Mrs. R. S. Sirpurkar, learned C
Dismissal without inquiry violates natural justice and requires satisfactory justification under CISF Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
The dismissal of employees without a regular departmental enquiry and based solely on a preliminary enquiry was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable.
Dismissal from service matter - Rule 23 of Rules of 1991 clearly indicate that provisions of Revision are not mandatory in nature and are clearly at discretion of Officer whose appeal has been reject....
The decision to dismiss an individual from service without a departmental inquiry must be based on reasonable grounds, especially when national security implications are involved.
Dismissal without a formal inquiry under the BSF Act is justified if it's found impracticable due to security concerns. Authority must record reasons, but discretion remains with the competent author....
(1) Dismissal from service without conducting departmental inquiry – It is duty of disciplinary authority to record satisfaction how and in what manner holding an enquiry is not reasonably practicabl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
