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
| 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
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.
Disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with statutory rules upheld; failure to prevent a security breach justified penalty of withheld increments.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to established procedures, and courts will not interfere unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or the process violated natural justice.
Procedural safeguards, fair hearing, and compliance with statutory mandates are essential in disciplinary proceedings, and the violation of such safeguards can render the disciplinary action void.
The nature of misconduct proved by the Disciplinary Authority is grave in nature and the petitioner acted unbecoming of an Armed Force Personnel, while performing the patrolling duty.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper enquiry and opportunity to be heard, even for minor penalties.
The Disciplinary Authority may independently impose penalties based on a preponderance of evidence, even if the Enquiry Officer finds the accused innocent, provided proper procedures are followed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.