IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
Ramswaroop Kajala - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.35807 of 2016
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Reduction of Pay - Disciplinary Proceedings - Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 - Rule-36 - Article of Charges - Indiscipline - Dereliction towards bonafide official duty - Armed Force of the Union - CISF
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was charged with leaving a bus unattended in a starting condition, which led to an accident causing damage to property. The disciplinary authority imposed a major penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum stage for two years with cumulative effect, resulting in the postponement of future increments of pay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the charge of leaving the bus unattended was proved, the damage caused was minor and the petitioner did not commit the misconduct intentionally. The court held that the major penalty imposed was excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges.
Issues: The main issue was whether the punishment imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the proved charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the competent authorities should have considered imposing a minor penalty instead of a major penalty, as the damage caused was minor and the petitioner did not act with intention to commit the misconduct.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Disciplinary Authority to impose any one of the minor penalties under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules within a specified period.
ORDER :
The punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum stage from Rs.6720/- + Rs.2000/- GP to Rs.6460/- + Rs.2000/- GP in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 (+) Rs.2000/- GP for a period of two years with cumulative effect imposed on the writ petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner joined in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 23.03.2011. A charge memo dated 10.01.2013 under Rule-36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 was issued with the following Article of Charges:
3. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence, denying the Articles of Charges and not satisfied with the explanations dated 18.01.2013, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted a departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner and submitted his report on 14.03.2013, holding that the charges against the writ petitioner were held proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was provided with an opportunity to submit his further objections and the Disciplinary Authority passed final orders, imposing penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum stage for a period of two years with immediate effect. The reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner preferred an appeal and thereafter, Revision and both are rejected. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner parked the Bus inside the Mine-I A main gate and got down from the Bus in a starting condition. The petitioner had to got down from the Bus on account of sudden sound heard by him, which caused panic and thus, he got down from the Bus and has seen the surrounding. At that point of time, the Bus moved down towards Mine-I A Main Gate and the strike the stopper wall and in gate barrier of Mine-IA in the gate.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the incident happened on account of the fact that the petitioner heard a sound and immediately he got down from the Bus and has seen the surroundings, by that time, the Bus hit with the gate and it was a minor damage and even as per the respondents the expenditure involved was about a sum of Rs.1151.46/- and thereafter, the major penalty imposed on the writ petitioner is highly excessive.
6. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that the petitioner left the Bus unattended, which caused the accident. The SI/Exe Sabu Thomas (PW-1), the shift in-charge of ‘A’ shift on 27.12.2012, deposed in his statement that Bus bearing No. TN 31 CZ 0407 driven by the petitioner reached at Mine-IA Main Gate. The petitioner parked the vehicle inside the Mine-IA Main Gate 10 meters away from the stopper
The nature of misconduct proved by the Disciplinary Authority is grave in nature and the petitioner acted unbecoming of an Armed Force Personnel, while performing the patrolling duty.
In cases of dereliction of duty, the absence of an eyewitness does not preclude the establishment of misconduct, and the proportionality of punishment is a key consideration in disciplinary actions.
The court upheld the disciplinary penalty on the petitioner for gross negligence while on duty, emphasizing the significance of maintaining strict discipline in security forces.
Acquittal in a criminal case based on identical facts and charges requires reconsideration of departmental penalty.
The court upheld the disciplinary action and punishment imposed by the appellate authority, emphasizing the seriousness of the proved misconduct.
Receiving items without proper permission while on duty constitutes illegal gratification, justifying disciplinary action.
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.