Back
High Court Of Calcutta
J. K. BISWAS
A.K.MUKHOPADHYAY, AMIYA MUKHOPADHYAY - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W. P. 5281 (W) Of 2000
Decided On : 11/23/2004
MINOR PENALTY PROCEEDING - DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - BIAS - CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 - SECTION 22 - SUMMARY OF THE KEY LEGAL POINTS ESTABLISHED IN THE JUDGMENT: 1. A plea of bias can be established by showing a reasonable likelihood of bias, not actual bias. 2. The existence of a real likelihood of bias against the petitioner can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. A decision is perverse if it is based on no evidence or on evidence that is so weak that no reasonable person could have come to the same conclusion.
Fact of the Case:
A Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) inspector was punished in a minor penalty disciplinary proceeding for allegedly failing to take action against a minibus that had stopped near a security zone, despite being near the spot. The inspector challenged the disciplinary authority's and appellate authority's decisions in a writ petition, alleging bias and perversity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority was under the direct control of the commandant who submitted the undisclosed report that led to the initiation of the proceeding, creating a real likelihood of bias. The court also found that the appellate authority disposed of the appeal in a mechanical way, without considering the petitioner's case, which further supported the inference of bias. The court held that the decisions were perverse as they were not supported by any evidence and were based on allegations and counter-allegations without any corroborating evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary authority and appellate authority's decisions were vitiated by bias. 2. Whether the decisions were perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram Higher Secondary School to establish the test for determining a plea of bias. 2. The court found that the facts and circumstances of the case, including the undisclosed report of the commandant, the non-consideration of the petitioner's plea of bias, and the nature of the allegations and counter-allegations, led to the irresistible conclusion of a real likelihood of bias against the petitioner. 3. The court held that the decisions were perverse as they were based on no evidence or on evidence that was so weak that no reasonable person could have come to the same conclusion.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the decisions of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority, and ordered that the proceedings initiated by the minor penalty charge-sheet be deemed to be closed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, an inspector in central industrial security force, was punished in a minor penalty disciplinary proceeding, and the decisions given by the disciplinary authority dated August 30th, 1999 and the appellate authority dated January 18th, 2000 have made him aggrieved. He challenges those decisions in this writ petition.
( 2 ) THE English translation of the allegations made in the chargesheet dated July 15th, 1999, issued by the assistant commandant of the petitioner's unit in Hindi, is as under:- cisf No : 871300085 Ins. /exe. A. K. Mukhopadhyay is at present working a Com/comm in A. Coy. On 8. 7. 1999 at about 10-45 hrs. when the Commandant Sri S. L. Prasad was travelling on the Barrage, he noticed a mini bus parked near BPI near National Highway No. 34 near the Security Zone. Inspector/exe. A. K. Mukhopadhyay, despite being near the BPI did not take any action. Upon being asked by the commandant he gave no reply. Considering the present critical situation there is a standing order for extreme caution. Inspite of being a Company commander and despite the mini bus having stopped near the Security zone he had taken no action. Consequently it was the commandant who had taken the action against the driver and helper. This has amounted to a grave negligence of duty and disobedience to the lawful order of the superior. Hence the charge.
( 3 ) THE standing order referred to in the charge-sheet was issued by the deputy commandant on June 23rd, 1999, and para. 7 of it provides :- "the duty officer shall not allow any cars or vehicles of any kind to stop within 150 meters of either end of the Barrage. The driver of such vehicle should be explained politely and told to move on. No indecent behaviour or physical violence should be resorted to. "
( 4 ) IT is not disputed that the charge-sheet was issued on the basis of a report submitted by the commandant of the unit on July 8th, 1999 to its deputy commandant. It is also not disputed that copy of the report was never supplied to the petitioner, before this Court also it has not been disclosed.
( 5 ) THE petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated August 18th, 1999. In reply to the charges he said :"i would like to inform the following facts. Firstly the basis of the charges are totally ipsi dixit and inconsequent. Thereby it is to be told that the charges framed against me are baseless, vindictive in nature, spiteful and ill minded, because "he gave the reasons in detail, and said :"that in the imputation it is told that when Commandant reached near the bus I was at BP-1 which is concocted story and blatant lie as the fact is this that when Commandant's car stopped all of a sudden in front of the minibus near 12th reserve Btn I was in between BP3 and bp2 and Commandant car was about 40 to 50 mtr. away from BP2 which can not be told very near to the minibus. That checking of entire post of the Barrage having 3 km distance in one side on foot is a herculian task as the distance of each Barrage post is about 300 mtr. which can not be covered at the speed of car. On 8. 7. 99 I had checked BP3 at 10-40 hours after that I reached BP2 having cross 300 mtr. distance where according to charge sheet the incident happened at 10-45 hours. It is clearly shown that I was not present at BP1 as the time of incident (the xerox copy of the beat book is attached for your kind perusal please. "in the reply he alleged :"the charge-sheet was issued in a pre conceived manner knowingly to fix the under signed. e. g. on 7. 7. 1999 it was told to the IGINES that the under signed is worthless one without any basis which is against the norms. Again on 8. 7. 1999 it was told to the under signed that he would be suspended and the remarks regarding the looking of under signed "whether I have seen my face in the mirror or not. " hence the above incidents Proves the Personal Bias. "
( 6 ) AFTER receiving the reply the assistant commandant passed the final order dated August 30th, 1999
AI
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
