Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 433
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.
Hare Krishna – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 3568 of 2013
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.B.S. Mahapatra.
For the Respondent: Chandreyi Alam.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of clear and definite proof to establish a charge of illegal gratification.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceeding - Central Industrial Security Force - CISF Rules 2001 Rule 37 - Summary: The court discussed the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner challenging the imposition of a minor penalty based on the charge of illegal gratification. The court found that there was no clear proof supporting the charge and set aside the final order and subsequent appellate and revisional orders. The court relied on the judgment of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others vs. Jai Bhagwan, (2011) 6 SCC 376 to emphasize the requirement of clear evidence to establish illegal gratification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee in the Central Industrial Security Force, was served with a memorandum of charge alleging illegal gratification. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty based on the charge, which was upheld in the appellate and revisional orders. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the disciplinary proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no clear proof of the petitioner's involvement in illegal gratification and set aside the final order and subsequent appellate and revisional orders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the charge of illegal gratification against the petitioner was supported by clear evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of clear and definite proof to establish the charge of illegal gratification, citing the judgment of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others vs. Jai Bhagwan, (2011) 6 SCC 376.
Final Decision: The court set aside the final order and subsequent appellate and revisional orders, and directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT :
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, challenging the disciplinary proceeding, which culminated in the final order dated 24th February, 2011, whereby the petitioner was awarded a minor penalty, inter-alia, including the appellate and the revisional orders dated 18th April, 2011 and 23rd December 2011 respectively.
2. The petitioner is an employee in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to “CISF”). At the material point of time he was posted at the CISF Unit, Kolkata Port Trust, when he was served with a memorandum of charge under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The statement of allegations as appearing from the translated copy of the memorandum of charge dated 7th February, 2011, calling upon the petitioner to make a representation within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum, is extracted herein-below:
“Statement of allegation leveled against No. 077080150 under rule 37 of CISF Rules 2001 against Constable No. 077080159 Hare Krishna of CISF Unit, KoPT, Kolkata CISF No. 077080150 Constable Hare Krishna of CISF Unit, KOPT, Kolkata A Company with ASI S K. Basskey HC/GD M. Gousiddin and Constable Ashok Das was detailed for duty on 27.01.2011 from 0500 hrs to 1300 hrs at KPD-II gate no. 13. That during surprise checking of Shri R.K. Vaish, Deputy Commandant along with Insp/Exe Subhash Chandra (IC CIW) Inspector/Exec Kishore Kumar (Coy Commander of A Coy) Sub Inspector/Exe A.K. Biswas (Coy 21/c) and Const. D. Majhi (CIW) from 1130 to 1230 hrs, at the back side of KPD-II Gate No. 13 near back side of Company Office an amount of Rs. 150 was found inside folded DDP paper, and the which shows that the amount said was illegally collected by the members of the force detailed for duty at the gate. Such act is violation of order, negligence on duty, irresponsible and gross indiscipline, which is not expected from a member of the Armed Force of the union. Hence the charge.”
3. The petitioner had duly responded to the said memorandum by a communication in writing dated 16th February, 2011, denying all material allegations therein. The said proceeding was, however, finally disposed of by a final order/report dated 24th February, 2011 whereby the Assistant Commandant upon arriving at a finding that money was illegally collected by the members of the force, the charge having been established and the petitioner having been found guilty of the allegations levelled against him, had imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment for one (1) year which will not have the effect on his pension.
4. Although, the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal, the same was, however, rejected by an order dated 18th April, 2011. The petitioner had thereafter filed a revisional application. The revisional authority also did not interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority.
5. Challenging the aforesaid orders and the disciplinary proceeding, the present writ petition has been filed.
6. Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate representing the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the memorandum of charge submits that a serious allegation of illegal gratification has been levelled against the petitioner. Although, the petitioner had duly responded to the memorandum of charge by denying all material allegations, the respondents without holding a proper enquiry had concluded that the charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved. It is submitted that even from the final order it would not appear that there is any proof of the petitioner taking illegal gratification. There is no proof of any document as regards the factum of receipt of such illegal gratification and having regard to the same, no inference can be drawn that the petitioner was involved in accepting illegal gratification on the basis of suspicion, in absence of any proof. In support of his aforesaid contention, he ha
