Back
2012 Supreme(Cal) 953
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
HARISH TANDON, J.
Lokesh Nag
Versus
Union of India & Others
W.P. No. 11271 (W) of 2010
Decided On : 18-10-2012
For the Petitioner:Uttam Kumar Mazumdar, Debasish Kundu, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Dilip Kumar Chatterjee, Advocate.
The High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the revisioning authority in a disciplinary proceeding under the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, where the situs of the revisioning authority is within its territorial jurisdiction, and the order of the revisioning authority merges with the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities.
Headnote:
ARTICLE 226 - JURISDICTION - CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE ACT 1968 - Disciplinary proceedings - High Court's jurisdiction to entertain writ petition - Order of revisioning authority within jurisdiction - Merger of orders of disciplinary and appellate authorities - Maintainability of writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against an enrolled member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for alleged misconduct committed while posted in Assam. The disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty and imposed a penalty of reduction of pay. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which modified the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner then challenged the appellate authority's order before the revisioning authority, situated within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The revisioning authority affirmed the order of the appellate authority.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the situs of the revisioning authority was within its territorial jurisdiction and the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority merged with the ultimate order passed by the revisioning authority. The Court further held that the scope of judicial review was limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision itself, and that the Court should not interfere with the finding of fact recorded in departmental inquiries except in certain limited circumstances.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, given that the alleged misconduct was committed outside its jurisdiction and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted by authorities situated outside its jurisdiction. 2. Whether the High Court could interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the authorities in the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution extends to any person or authority within its territorial jurisdiction, including the revisioning authority in the present case. 2. The order of the revisioning authority, which affirmed the order of the appellate authority, merged with the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, making the revisioning authority's order the effective and enforceable order. 3. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision itself. The Court should not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the authorities unless it is based on no evidence, is perverse, or is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice or statutory regulations.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was maintainable but that there was no merit in the petitioner's challenge to the disciplinary proceedings.
Harish Tandon, J.
A short but very interesting point is involved in this writ petition relating to the competence and jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of reduction of pay as well as the stoppage of increment passed by the original authority situate outside the jurisdiction of the High court.
Against the alleged misconduct committed outside the territorial jurisdiction and the order of the appellate authority which is also situated outside the jurisdiction of this court but the revisioning authority confirming and/or affirming the aforesaid order is situated within the jurisdiction of this court, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.
The matter relates to a disciplinary proceeding initiated under the Central Industrial Security Force Act 1968 by the competent authority against the enrolled members of the force for alleged misconduct committed by the said delinquent while posted as port commander in DGDB Rig at Nazira, Assam. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/-from one civil contractor for entry of his labourers and materials and handed over his bank account number together with pay-in-slip for deposit. Having not deposited the said amount the petitioner alleged to have refused the entry of the trucks and materials in the said Rig.
The enquiry officer submitted the Articles of charge and invited reply from the petitioner and after recording the evidence and the statement, the enquiry officer came to the finding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct.
The copy of the said enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and the disciplinary authority called upon the petition to deliver his defence against the said enquiry report which was duly submitted by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, ultimately, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and awarded the punishment of reduction of pay to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with immediate effect and further ordered that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority situated at Nazira, Assam and the appellate authority modified the order of the disciplinary authority by inflicting a penalty of reduction of the pay scale in three stages for a period of three years and maintained the other orders passed by the disciplinary authority.
The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order of the appellate authority before the revisioning authority, situated within the jurisdiction of this court and upon dismissal thereof, have filed the instant writ petition.
The respondent authorities have taken a plea that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition. It is stated that the misconduct is committed outside the jurisdiction of the court and the entire disciplinary proceeding was conducted by an authority situated outside the jurisdiction including the order passed by the appellate authority. Mere situs of the revisioning authority within the jurisdiction does not confers power to adjudicate the said dispute.
Mr. Uttam Mazumdar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the situs of the revisioning authority is within the jurisdiction of this court and as such the writ petition is maintainable. In support of the aforesaid contention he relies upon the following judgments :
1. Nabin Chandra Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 2966
2. Union of India Vs. Adani Export Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 126
3. Union of India Vs. Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. Ltd., AIR 1983 Cal 307
4. Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar De, 1987 (1) CLJ 354
5. Raichand & co. & Anr. Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors., 1998 (1) CLJ 425
Mr. Mazumdar strenuously submits that the person i.e. the civil contractor who alleged that the petitioner have demanded money, has not been e
