IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
Barmeswar Rai – Petitioner
Versus
Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Kancheepuram & Others – Respondents
WP No. 10851 of 2014 & MP Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014 & WMP No. 22331 of 2016
Decided On : 06-07-2022
Compulsory Retirement - Central Industrial Security Force - Central Industrial Security Force Act, 2001, Rule 34 - The punishment of compulsory retirement is under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner was charged with contracting a second marriage and providing contradictory information on the Nomination Form. The court found that the first charge of contracting a second marriage was not proved, and the second charge of providing contradictory information was proved. The court held that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the gravity of the proved allegations against the petitioner. The court referred to the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 2001 and Rule 34, and emphasized that punishments imposed must be in proportionate with the gravity of the allegations/proved charges. The court also cited relevant observations from the Supreme Court cases of Union of India and Others vs. P.Balasubrahmanyam and Union of India and Others vs. Managobinda Samantaray to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Constable/Driver in Central Industrial Security Force, was charged with contracting a second marriage and providing contradictory information on the Nomination Form. The court found that the first charge of contracting a second marriage was not proved, and the second charge of providing contradictory information was proved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the gravity of the proved allegations against the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the validity of the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner and the proportionality of the punishment to the proved allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that punishments imposed must be in proportionate with the gravity of the allegations/proved charges. The court also emphasized that the nature of charges found against the petitioner did not call for a major penalty, and the consequences of mistakes should not be unduly harsh.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders imposing compulsory retirement on the petitioner and directed the respondents to issue appropriate orders allowing the petitioner to retire from service with all service and consequential service benefits except the back wages.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, after calling for the concerned records relating to the order of Compulsory Retirement bearing Ref.No.V-15014/DAE (K) Major–2/BMR/Disc/2012/1347 dated 03.04.2012 read with final amendment order Ref.No.V-15014/DAE (:K)/maj.2/BMR/Disc/2012/1368 dated 03.04.2012 issued by the first respondent as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 31.07.2012 Ref.No.V-15017/A-08/L & R/DAE/2012/4369 read with order of the third respondent dated 26.12.2012 bearing Ref.No.15012/07/12 – 10910 and to quash the same.)
1. The punishment of compulsory retirement, affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner joined as Head Constable/Driver in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 20.05.1989. He was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector and posted at Department of Atomic Energy at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu. During the year 1991, when the writ petitioner was a bachelor, he nominated his brother's wife Smt.Kalawati Devi and her two sons, namely, Radhakrishna Rai and Jagnarayan Rai as his nominees to receive his terminal benefits in the event of his death.
3. In March 2002, the petitioner married a widow namely Smt.Gayatri Devi, who was a Cook/Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). A son born out of the wedlock, namely, Pawan Kumar Rai. In the year 2004, the petitioner gave a fresh nomination, nominating Smt.Gayatri Devi as his wife and his son Pawan Kumar Rai. Thus the earlier nomination of the writ petitioner stands cancelled or superseded.
4. The respondents issued a charge sheet dated 05.11.2011 containing two charges. The first article of charge against the writ petitioner was that during the lifetime of his wife Smt.Kalawati Devi, the petitioner married another lady, namely Smt.Gayatri Devi, which is in violation of the Rule 21(2) of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964. The second charge is that the petitioner had given a wrong and contradictory information on 28.06.2002 while making changes in the Nomination Form already furnished by him on 14.12.1991.
5. The Nomination Form submitted by the writ petitioner on 14.12.1991 reveals that the name of the wife of the writ petitioner has been mentioned as Smt.Kalawati Devi. Therefore, the Department for all purposes treated the said Smt.Kalawati Devi as his wife from the date of nomination. However, during the year 2004, the petitioner revised his nomination by stating that he married Smt.Gayatri Devi. Thus, the Department drew an inference and framed the charges.
6. The petitioner submitted his explanations, denying the charges, by stating that Smt.Kalawati Devi is his brother's wife and mistakenly he has mentioned her name and her children in the first nomination along with the name of his parents. The petitioner had no intention to furnish false information and in order to ensure that the service benefits in the event of his death is to be settled, he has mentioned the name of his brother's wife Smt.Kalawati Devi and therefore, it was a mistaken entry and accordingly requested for exoneration from the charges.
7. The Disciplinary Authority not satisfied with the explanations, appointed an Enquiry Officer, who conducted an enquiry. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Enquiry Officer made a finding that the first charge is held not proved and the second charge is held proved. Based on the second charge, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that as far as the first charge is concerned, the Department could not prove that the said Smt.Kalawati Devi is the first wife of the writ petitioner and he married Smt.Gayatri Devi as
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.