IN THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
N. Kotiswar Singh, Arun Dev Choudhury, JJ.
Shri Hari Mohan Roy - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
WA No. 22 of 2021
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Order of penalty - Compulsory retirement from service - Appeal against order by which penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on appellant with benefits of pension and gratuity– Held, If competent authorities had not considered those remarks not to be sufficient to withhold his promotion to higher post of Head Constable, Court do not see any reason why these remarks could be used against him to impose penalty of compulsory retirement - But as can be seen from order of penalty and also from observation made by learned Single Judge as contained in paragraph 26 of order, aforesaid adverse entries did play a role in determining quantum of punishment - Having found that competent authority could not have taken into consideration earlier adverse entries which court considered to be stale and cannot be used - Having ignored by authorities at time of giving promotion to higher post of Head Constable, certainly these cannot be used in a subsequent period when order of penalty was issued – Court is of view that authorities will be required to revisit decision as regards quantum of punishment to be imposed on appellant - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6282/2015 by which the learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to the final order dated 23.05.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority by which the penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the appellant with the benefits of pension and gratuity with immediate effect.
3. Brief facts of the case as may be relevant for deciding the appeal may be stated as follows.
4. The case of the appellant is that he was initially appointed as a Constable of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the year 1986 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 2012 and he was still continuing in the said post till he was compulsorily retired from service by the impugned order.
5. According to the appellant, while discharging his duty as a Head Constable in CISF Unit of KoPT, Kolkata, he was detailed for a duty from 0600 hours to 1800 hours at a location and at about 1605 hours on 07.12.2014. When the 'B' shift In-charge/S.I./Exe T Sudhakar was checking the duty post, it was found that the appellant was talking on with his mobile phone and using the same during the duty hours which was strictly prohibited. Accordingly, the appellant was served with a Memorandum dated 29.01.2015, which contains three Articles of Charge, which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I
“An act highly prejudicial to good orders and discipline of the Force in that CISF No.863100019 HC/GD Hari Mohan Roy of CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata (“A” Coy) was detailed for day shift duty on 07.12.2014 from 0600 hrs to 1800 hrs at C.F.S. 1st and 2nd of NSD area, CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata. At about 1605 hrs on 07.12.2014, when ‘B” shift in-charge SI/ExeT Sudhakar went to check the duty post found that HC/GD Hari Mohan Roy was talking with his mobile phone in spite of instructions/directions were issued from time to time regarding not to bring mobile phone during duty hours. Such act on the part of CISF No. 863100019 HC/GD Hari Mohan Roy of “A” Coy of CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata tantamount to gross negligence, carelessness, disobey of law full orders and an act of unbecoming of a member of disciplined Force like CISF”. Hence the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II
“In that CISF No 863100019 HC/GD Hari Mohan Roy of CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata (“A” Coy) was detailed for day shift duty on 07.12.2014 from 0600 hrs to 1800 hrs at C.F.S. 1st and 2nd NSD area, CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata. At about 1605 hrs on 07.12.2014, when ‘B’ shift in-charge SI/Exe T Sudhakar went to check the duty post found HC/GD Hari Mohan was talking with mobile phone. On question of ‘B’ shift in-charge to handed over the mobile phone HC/GD Hari Mohan Roy refused and started unnecessary arguments with Insp/Exe A K Singh, Coy, Commander of ‘A’ Coy. Such act on the part of CISF No. 863100019 HC/GD Hari Mohan Roy of “A’ Coy of CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata tantamount to gross indiscipline, insubordination, dereliction for duty and an act of unbecoming of a member of disciplined Force like CISF”. Hence the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III
“In that No 863100019 HC/GD Hari Mohan Roy of CISF Unit KoPT Kolkata (“A” Coy) is not amenable to discipline and has not improved his conduct as expected from a member of disciplined Force, in-spite of having been penalized/punished earlier 02(Two) Major and 09(Nine) Minor penalties in various occasions for his incorrigible habits during his service tenure and thus, he is a habitual offender.” Hence the charge.
6. Accordingly, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant. In the proceeding the appellant took the plea that at the relevant time he was talking with his wife who was seriously ill and who was undergoing treatment at the
State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel
Allahabad Bank Officers Association & Anr. Vs. Allahabad Bank Limited & Ors.
SupremeToday
Judicial review of disciplinary decisions is limited; courts cannot reconsider the nature of punishment unless found shockingly disproportionate, emphasizing the importance of discipline in sensitive....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, the need for evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of guilt, and the requirement for the penalty to b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's act of unauthorized absence from duty constituted 'misconduct' under the CISF Rules, leading to the imposition of the punishm....
The court ruled that disciplinary authorities must consider proportionality in punishment, especially for minor offenses, as per applicable regulations.
The principle of proportionality of punishment is crucial in determining the appropriate penalty for proved charges of misconduct.
An order of compulsory retirement must be based on a thorough assessment of the entire service record of the employee, and if it casts a stigma or is based solely on disciplinary actions without cons....
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision on compulsory retirement, emphasizing limited judicial review regarding the appropriateness of punishment imposed, unless it is found to be shoc....
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.