Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 528
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
K. Dharmappa (CISF No.913480032 Head Constable/GD) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P(S) No. 176 of 2021
Decided on : 06-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikash Kumar, CGC
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in a Departmental Proceeding and the importance of adhering to specific office orders.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Departmental Proceeding - Office Order No. 9186 dated 30.10.2018 - [Section 19.1, 19.2 & 19.3 of Lucknow Kshetriay Gramin Bank Vrs. Rajednra Singh] - The court discussed the scope of interference in a Departmental Proceeding, emphasizing that the quantum of punishment is the domain of the employer and limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. The court also highlighted the specific office order prohibiting bachelor CISF personnel from visiting family complexes during evening/night hours and the consequences of deviation from the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Constable of CISF, was found guilty of misconduct for entering a family complex in violation of a specific office order. He was punished with a reduction in pay and stoppage of increment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's act of entering the family complex violated the office order and constituted misconduct. It emphasized the limited scope of interference in a Departmental Proceeding and upheld the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's challenge to the punishment imposed in the Departmental Proceeding, the scope of interference by the court, and the violation of the specific office order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the quantum of punishment is the domain of the employer and that limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It also highlighted the importance of adhering to specific office orders and the consequences of deviation from such orders.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed, and the punishment imposed on the petitioner was upheld by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed to quash the final order dated 20.6.2019 passed by Senior Commandant, CISF, CTPS, Chandrapura-respondent no.5.
3. The petitioner is a Head Constable of CISF, Unit CTPS Chandrapura. A complaint was lodged by Anita Kumari daughter of Constable P.C Oraon, CISF Chandrapura alleging therein that on 13.3.2019 at about 22 hours the petitioner entered the house by knocking the door. Father of the complainant was there along with the complainant. The petitioner sat with them when the complainant asked the petitioner the purpose of his visit. The petitioner thereafter threatened the complainant and her father also misbehaved with them and went away. The petitioner thereafter was served with a memo and was suspended contemplating initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. Charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner alleging therein the misconduct which he has committed. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated after framing of charges. Presenting Officer was also appointed. Considering the materials gathered during the Enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Report was submitted finding the petitioner to be guilty of the charge.
After following the due procedure of law, the petitioner was punished. The punishment was of reduction of the pay by two stages from Rs.40,400/- to Rs.38,100/- in level-5 of pay matrix for a period of one year with immediate effect. Further there was a direction that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the aforesaid period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also stood dismissed, so was the revision.
4. Challenging the aforesaid three orders passed by the authorities, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the punishment is absolutely harsh and does not commensurate with the gravity of the charges put against him. He submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is false and due to personal grudge a false complaint has been lodged by the complainant, in connivance with others, and the petitioner has been punished. He submits that there are several contradiction in the statement of the complainant and if the complaint is seen it would be clear that during recording of the statement, the complainant had improved her case. As per him the contradictions were not properly dealt with by the Enquiry Officer.
5. The respondents had filed their counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit they have stated that petitioner has committed misconduct, consciously and wilfully violated the direction of the superior including the Office order No.9186 dated 30.10.2018. There was no occasion for the petitioner to visit the residential quarters when there was a specific order prohibiting the CISF, Personnel to enter the family complex. Entering in family complex, ignoring the order of the superior, is a misconduct for which penalty was awarded.
6. After hearing the parties, I find that petitioner is questioning the punishment which was imposed in the Departmental Proceeding. The scope of interfering in a Departmental Proceeding is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriay Gramin Bank Vrs. Rajednra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 in para 19.1, 19.2 & 19.3 has held as below:-
“19.1 When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2 The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3 Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking
