SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 795

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J. 
H. K. Sikdar @ Himangshu Kumar Simdar - Petitioner 
Versus 
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.A. 4161 of 2010
Decided On : 24-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Indranath Mitra, Mr. Sankha Biswas
For the Respondent: Mr. Niladri Saha

The court upheld the disciplinary penalty on the petitioner for gross negligence while on duty, emphasizing the significance of maintaining strict discipline in security forces.

Headnote:(A) CISF Rules, 2001 - Rule 36 - Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Disciplinary proceedings - Petitioner, a Constable, failed to prevent theft despite being on duty - Found guilty of gross negligence - Court affirmed penalty of pay reduction for five years due to failure to act, emphasizing stringent disciplinary expectations. (Paras 1, 6, 16)

(B) Natural Justice - Right to fair hearing - Procedural lapses alleged in inquiry were dismissed as unsubstantiated - Adequate representation provided under CISF protocol, hence no violation found. (Paras 4, 7, 15)

(C) Proportionality in Punishment - The Court evaluated the appropriateness of penalty within the context of the security force duties, concluding that reduction of pay, while significant, was proportionate given the breach of duty. (Paras 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced charges for allegedly failing to act during a theft attempt while on duty on 20 April 2008, leading to departmental inquiry and subsequent punishment.

Findings of Court:
The disciplinary actions and penalty were upheld, as procedures were deemed satisfactory and in accordance with relevant rules.

Issues: The court addressed the procedural validity of the disciplinary inquiry and the appropriateness of the penalty imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner was sufficiently aware of the charges against him, and the penalty was justified considering his misconduct.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. details of disciplinary actions against petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6)
2. petitioner's arguments on procedural lapses. (Para 4 , 5 , 7)
3. respondents' defense against petitioner's claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. clarification on charge clarity and response. (Para 12 , 13)
5. court's standard for reviewing disciplinary actions. (Para 14 , 15)
6. principles of proportionality in disciplinary penalties. (Para 16 , 17)
7. final order and procedural directives. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. The petitioner, a Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), bearing Force No.893440622, presently assailed in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, three impugned orders – namely, (i) the Memorandum of Charge dated 07.05.2008, (ii) the Final Order of Punishment dated 08.11.2008, and (iii) the Appellate Authority’s order dated 12.03.2009 – whereby he was visited with the penalty of reduction in pay to the minimum of the time scale for a period of five years, entailing consequential deprivation of increments and future pay progression.

2. The fact of this case revealed while the petitioner was deployed on additional duty between 19:00 and 23:00 hrs. on 20th April 2008, between watch towers Nos.2 and 3 of Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur, certain miscreants allegedly attempted to remove approximately one metric tonne of scrap material from the slag dump yard adjoining boundary wall pillars 299 to 301. It was the case of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner, though stationed about 20 metres from the said spot, failed to apprehend or even challenge the miscreants, thereby exhibiting gross negligence and dereliction of duty.

3. A Memorandum of Charge under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, was accordingly issued and after a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct. The punishment of reduction of pay was imposed and the subsequent appeal preferred by the Appellate Authority.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, contending that the enquiry was vitiated by serious procedural lapses, non- application of mind and a complete disregard of principles of natural justice.

5. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted as follows:-

i. The petitioner, a Constable serving under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), at the material time in April 2008, was attached to the CISF Unit, Durgapur Steel Plant. He was deputed for additional duty between 19:00 hrs. on 20.04.2008, covering the stretch between Watch Tower Nos.02 and 03 of the Alloy Steel Plant (ASP).

ii. Admittedly, on the said date, Constable J.P. Acharjee, bearing No.944521079 was simultaneously performing regular ‘B’ Shift duty in the same zone. At around 20:40 hrs., the Assistant Commandant, Shri S.K. Jha, during a surprise inspection, purportedly found Constable Acharjee conversing with an unidentified individual upon which the said individual fled into the plant premises. Simultaneously, a group of 12-13 miscreants sitting on the boundary wall reportedly jumped down and escaped on the outer side.

iii. A General Diary Entry (GDE) was instituted to record the occurrence, and on the following day, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Charge dated 07.05.2008 was issued, alleging failure to maintain absolute integrity, gross negligence, and dereliction of duty. The articles of charge, statement of imputation, and supporting documents were enclosed.

iv. The petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry, submitted his defence, and also filed representation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. His suspension was later revoked on 26.08.2008. However, upon conclusion of the proceedings, the Senior Commandant, CISF, by order dated 08.11.2008, imposed on the petitioner the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of Rs. 7510/- in the revised scale under the 6th Pay Commission for five years

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top