Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JUSTICE AMIT RAWALUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
Usha M.R. W/o. Mohammed Shafi - Respondent
WA NO. 466 OF 2020
Decided On : 06-02-2025
(A) CISF Act and Rules - Rule 36 - Disciplinary enquiry - Dismissal of Woman Constable challenged - The learned Single Judge quashed the dismissal orders, finding that the enquiry violated principles of natural justice by denying the opportunity to examine witnesses and access documents - The court emphasized the need for a fair enquiry process. (Paras 12 , 13 , 27 , 28 )
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, including access to relevant documents and witness examination. (Paras 19 , 20 )
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a Woman Constable, was dismissed after a disciplinary enquiry for alleged misconduct, including disobedience of orders and violation of departmental rules. She claimed the enquiry was unfair due to lack of access to documents and witnesses. (Paras 2 , 10 )
Findings of Court:
The court found the dismissal orders unsustainable due to the violation of natural justice principles and directed a reconsideration of the disciplinary action. (Paras 14 , 27 )
Issues: The main issues were whether the enquiry was conducted fairly and whether the punishment was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. (Paras 23 , 28 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inquiry was flawed as it did not allow the respondent to present her defense adequately, emphasizing the importance of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 27 , 28 )
Result: Writ appeal disposed of; dismissal orders quashed.
JUDGMENT :
K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.
This writ appeal is preferred by Union of India-respondent before writ court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No.11070/2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed Exts.P12, P14 and P15 orders passed by the respondents. Impugning the said order, Union of India and its officers preferred this writ appeal.
2. The facts in a narrow compass are as follows:
The respondent-writ petitioner, Usha M.R., was a Woman Constable in CISF, dismissed from service after a disciplinary enquiry. She was aggrieved by Exts.P12, P14 and P15 orders passed by the Union of India and its officers. The respondent/petitioner was working in the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., Udyogamandal since September 2011. Immediately, she had submitted a complaint against an officer regarding the harassment from him. The complaint was rejected as per Ext.P1 order dated 05.10.2012.
3. It is stated in the complaint that, on 16.10.2012, she made a request to arrange a vehicle to visit hospital due to back pain, her request was turned down by the department. Therefore, she went to the St.Joseph’s Hospital, Manjummal along with her husband and was admitted therein.
4. While she was undergoing treatment in the hospital, Ext.P2 movement order was issued on 17.10.2012, transferring her to Vishakhapattanam. The respondent/petitioner challenged transfer by filing W.P(C).No.24842/2012 and this Court as per Ext.P3 order dated 02.11.2012 granted a stay of the transfer order observing that the transfer during the academic year was unwarranted.
5. While continuing so, Ext.P4 memo of charges dated 04.01.2013 was served upon the respondent/petitioner.
6. The respondent/petitioner submitted her explanation. An enquiry was conducted thereafter. As per Ext.P10 enquiry report, the charges were found proved against the respondent/petitioner.
7. Even though she submitted Ext.P11 explanation against the findings contained in Ext.P10 enquiry report, vide Ext.P12 order dated 29.04.2013, she was dismissed from service. Appeal and the revision submitted by the respondent were rejected, as per Exts.P14 order dated 29.08.2013 and Ext.P15 order dated 28.03.2014 respectively.
8. The main contention of the respondent-writ petitioner is that, enquiry was conducted without furnishing documents as well as not permitting her to examine the witnesses, as per her request.
9. The contention of the appellants-respondents was that the respondent-writ petitioner is in the habit of submitting irrelevant complaints (dated 12.04.2012 and 23.07.2012) against her seniors. The complaint submitted by her on 23.07.2012 was rejected as per order dated 05.10.2012. Before that date, she had not made any complaints with regard to back pain and it is only a pretext to avoid her duty and responsibility. The respondent-writ petitioner herself got admitted in the hospital knowing that she is under order of transfer.
10. She had given interviews to the editors of various newspapers and TV channels, violating Section 15A of the CISF Act and Rules. Therefore, disciplinary action was initiated against her under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules.
11. The appellants further contended that she was awarded punishments on seven occasions within a period of ten years of her service but failed to improve her conduct. Ext.P12 was issued in that context, much less was given sufficient opportunity to defend the case.
12. Noticing the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition in the following manner.
“12. In this case the petitioner has pointed out the relevance of the documents atleast in the explanation to the Inquiry Report as well as in her appeal and revision. The request of petitioner for the Beat book was rejected saying that she was aware of the contents thereof. The Inquiry officer ought to have found that her awareness would not substitute documentary evidence to be brought out in the inquiry. Petitioner has not called for any documen
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring the accused has the opportunity to present a defense, including access to relevant documents and witnesses.
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
Disciplinary proceedings must follow the principles of natural justice, including the right to evidence, but non-supply of evidence does not invalidate proceedings if the accused received a fair chan....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing access to relevant evidence. Failure to follow these may invalidate the proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including supplying relevant documents, but if no prejudice is established, the proceedings may still be upheld.
Dismissal without inquiry violates natural justice and requires satisfactory justification under CISF Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution.
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
