Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J
Ratul Borah S/o Bipul Borah - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 4 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) 4446 / 2019
Decided On : 12-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Disciplinary proceedings - Petitioner challenged penalty of stoppage of increment imposed for misconduct - Petitioner claimed denial of documents affected his defense - Court upheld disciplinary authority's discretion under CISF Rules, 2001, particularly Rule 37 regarding minor penalties - No gross illegality found in proceedings or penalty - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 1 - 19 )
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice require fair opportunity to present defense; however, in minor penalties, the authority has discretion in procedure. (Paras 5 , 15 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Constable in CISF, faced disciplinary action for alleged misconduct involving female staff. He argued that lack of access to documents hindered his defense. The penalty was modified from three years to one year without cumulative effect. (Paras 1 - 4 )
Findings of Court:
The court found no illegality in the disciplinary proceedings and upheld the authority's discretion under applicable rules. (Paras 15 - 19 )
Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for documents violated principles of natural justice and if the penalty was sustainable under the rules. (Paras 5 , 18 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary authority acted within its discretion under Rule 37, and the imposition of a minor penalty did not necessitate a detailed inquiry. (Paras 15 , 18 )
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia a disciplinary proceeding which had culminated in an order dated 01.11.2018 whereby the petitioner was imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby his departmental appeal has been rejected.
2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that he was working as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and at the relevant time, was posted at the Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL). Vide a memo of charge dated 02.05.2018, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on two charges which related to indecent behavior with certain female nursing staff of the VK-NRL Hospital with the further allegation of locking 4 female medical staff inside the vaccination room. It is the case of the petitioner that he had submitted an application to provide him additional documents and to conduct a regular enquiry and the said request was rejected vide communication dated 09.05.2018 by citing that since the proceeding was a minor disciplinary proceeding wherein the Disciplinary Authority does not desire to conduct detail enquiry, there was no requirement to give the delinquent access to official documents. Nonetheless, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 12.05.2018 and after consideration of the same, final order has been passed on 02.06.2018 whereby a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three years was imposed which would not have any effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner had accordingly submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was disposed of vide order dated 02.08.2018 whereby the appeal was rejected. Against the same, the petitioner has submitted a revision petition. The Revisional Authority, however vide an order dated 01.11.2018 had interfered with the penalty to the extent of reducing the period from three years to one year.
3. It is the validity and legality of the aforesaid action, which has been questioned in the present writ petition.
4. I have heard Shri A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri H. Gupta, learned CGC.
5. Shri Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of his request for furnishing additional documents vide the order dated 09.05.2018 is not sustainable in law as by the said action, the right of the petitioner to defend himself has been adversely affected. It is submitted that unless the documents upon which the allegations were based were furnished to him, no effective reply could be given. He has submitted that the foundation in the disciplinary proceeding being vitiated, the outcome of the same in the form of the impugned penalty is not sustainable in law.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Office Memorandum dated 28.10.1985 issued by the Ministry of Personnel and Training etc., Government of India on the issue of the dealing with a request of a delinquent for inspection of documents even in cases where enquiry is not mandatory. He has also submitted because of the impugned penalty, his future prospects in service are being adversely affected.
7. Per contra, Shri Gupta, learned CGC has submitted that the writ petition is structured on a fallacious foundation and therefore, is liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the entire action starting from the issue of memorandum of charges dated 02.05.2018 till the modification of the penalty done by the Revisional Authority vide the communication dated 01.11.2018 has been done by following the Rules and there is no illegality or irregularity at all. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the
Disciplinary authority's discretion under CISF Rules allows for minor penalties without mandatory inquiry, provided no gross illegality or violation of natural justice occurs.
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to checking the decision-making process; courts cannot reassess evidence unless penalties are shockingly disproportionate.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts may intervene if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper enquiry and opportunity to be heard, even for minor penalties.
The acquittal in a criminal case does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings, which require a lower standard of proof, and the Limitation Act does not apply to such proceedings.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited; High Courts cannot interfere with findings or penalties unless they are manifestly illegal or shockingly disproportionate.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to assessing fairness and legality of the process, not the merits of the findings, particularly for minor punishments.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and the principles of proportionality and the Wednesbury rule.
Judicial review of disciplinary matters is limited, with courts respecting the wide discretion of disciplinary authorities unless procedural fairness is violated or penalties shock the conscience.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
