Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2062
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, J.
Seraj Ansari son of Ali Hasan Ansari, Exconstable – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
WP(S) No.2690 of 2019
Decided On : 18-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate, Md. Farhan Kibriya and Atefa Parvez, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Mukherjee, CGC
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in disciplinary matters is limited to assessing legality and adherence to natural justice, not re-evaluating evidence or findings from the disciplinary authority.
Headnote:(A) Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2021 - Rule 36 - Disciplinary proceeding - Petition for judicial review of removal from service based on alleged forgery of documents - Inquiry conducted as per law, findings by Inquiry Officer upheld - Non-compliance with sub Rule 3 claimed; however, chargesheet and communication deemed compliant by the Court. (Paras 6, 8, 10, 12)
(B) Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - High Court does not act as an Appellate Authority; interference limited to issues of natural justice and conclusions without evidential support; scope includes examining legality of proceedings, not re-assessing evidence. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former constable, challenged his removal from service due to alleged forgery of documents. The disciplinary inquiry found the documents presented by the petitioner, except educational certificates, to be fake, leading to his removal. The Court highlighted that evidence had been evaluated and the inquiry followed due procedure. (Paras 3, 10)
Findings of Court:
The Court found no illegality in the procedure or the punishment; the disciplinary action was valid due to forged documents. The findings were not perverse and the inquiry complied with principles of natural justice. (Paras 10, 12)
Issues: Whether the principles of natural justice were violated and if the findings of the inquiry were substantiated by evidence. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to prescribed rules; judicial review is limited to ensuring legality and fairness rather than re-evaluating evidence or findings. The punitive action was proportionate to the misconduct of using forged documents. (Paras 7, 12)
Result: Writ application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to disciplinary removal based on documents. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural compliance and document authenticity. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis on review limits and inquiry findings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. conclusion affirming validity of disciplinary proceedings. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 24.06.2017, 04.10.2017 and 05.06.2018 i.e. the removal order, appellate order and the revisional order respectively, passed in a disciplinary proceeding.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was proceeded against in terms of Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules but Rule 36(3) has not been followed in this case thus the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated. He further submits that the respondents have wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the documents which have been presented by the petitioner at the time of entry in service is fake. There is no conclusive proof to arrive at the conclusion that the documents are fake. He relies upon Annexure-7 of the writ petition which according to the petitioner is a report of the Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, West K/A, Hamren, Assam which suggests that the allegation of forged document is a mistake of fact. It is his contention that since the documents are not conclusively proved to be forged, he could not have been removed from service.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Union of India submits that in the inquiry proceeding it was found that the documents filed by the petitioner was fake and on the basis of the fake document the petitioner has entered in CISF. After proper departmental inquiry he has been removed. She submits that when the Inquiry Officer has arrived at a finding of the fact that the documents were fake, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with the said finding of facts as an Appellate Court.
5. Petitioner was the Constable in CISF. He was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. Chargesheet was issued to him alleging therein that all the other certificates except educational certificates, seems to be fake. It is the allegation that his caste certificate and domicile certificate are fake. The charge memo was communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 3832 dated 25.11.2016. From the aforesaid charge memo, I find that the imputations are specific and are not vague. Along with the charge memo the copy of the documents which were relied upon by the department was also handed over to the petitioner. The details of witnesses through whom the department wanted to prove the charge was also mentioned.
6. Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules of 2021 provides for procedure for imposing major penalties. The petitioner has taken a plea that sub Rule 3 of Rule 36 has not been complied with. Sub Rule 3 provides that when it is proposed to hold an inquiry against the member of the Force, the Authority shall draw up substance of imputation of misconduct, statement of imputation in support of each article of charge, list of documents and the list of witnesses. The petitioner’s claim that sub Rule 3 of Rule 36 has not been followed is not correct. The chargesheet and the forwarding letter which is annexed with the counter affidavit clearly suggests that the statement of imputation has been framed and specific charge has also been framed against the petitioner and it has been communicated to the petitioner also. The list of documents and list of witness has also been provided to the petitioner. Thus ground taken by the petitioner of non-compliance of sub Rule 3 of Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001 cannot be accepted.
7. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially i
