Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Subodh Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented by its Secretary to the Government, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 10519 of 2014
Decided On : 14-06-2022
Misconduct - Compulsory Retirement - Rule 36 of CISF Rules - [Article 226 Writ Petition] - [Rule 36 of CISF Rules] - The court discussed the violation of office memorandum and standing security procedure, the petitioner's defense, and the previous punishments imposed. The court emphasized the need for proportionate punishment and highlighted the principles of proportionality of punishment as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was charged with misconduct for being in possession of an unaccounted amount of Rs.410 in violation of office memorandum. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, which was upheld in appellate and revision orders. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was in possession of the amount exceeding the permissible limit, but it was not established that the money was collected in an illegal manner. The court emphasized the need for proportionate punishment and quashed the impugned orders, directing the reinstatement of the petitioner into service with prospective pay revision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged misconduct, the petitioner's defense, and the proportionality of the imposed punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle of proportionality of punishment and highlighted the need for the disciplinary authority to consider the gravity of proved charges while imposing penalties.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service with prospective pay revision.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for record relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 21.02.2014 in his order No.V-15014/L&R/SS/Rev/SKS/2014-63 dated 21.02.2014, confirming the order of the 4th respondent dated 08.11.2013 in his appellate order No.V-11014/45/Disc/SS/2013/8303 dated 08.11.2013 and upheld the order passed by the 5th respondent dated 10.07.2013 in his final order No.V-15014/ChPT/SKS-03/Disc/2013/4730 dated 10.07.2013 to quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate petitioner into service with all monetary benefits.)
1. The writ petition on hand has been instituted questioning the order imposing the penalty to compulsory retirement and the appellate orders.
2. The writ petitioner joined as Constable General Duty on 15.11.1985, in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at IOC Barauni, Bihar. The petitioner states that he served all over India up to the year 2013 and had clean record of service for about 28 years. While he was serving at CISF unit, Chennai Port Trust (ChPT) of Chennnai under the control of the 5th respondent, a charge memo under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules was issued on 07.03.2017 stating the allegation that the petitioner of CISF unit ChPT, Chennai was deployed in 'B' shift duty post along with Rifle. An unaccounted amount of Rs.410/- was recovered from the front pocket of his uniform shirt on 25.02.2013 at about 2140 hours in violation of office memorandum dated 28.04.2010, and standing security procedure of Administrative Building Key Board duty post of CISF Unit ChPT Chennai, by searching team led by Inspector K.R.Raju, along with Sub-Inspector Satish Kumar and Sub-Inspector K.Loganathan and Constable G.Vikaram. This act on the part of the enrolled member of the Force tantamount to gross misconduct, tarnishing the image of the Force and deliberate violation of lawful order of the superior authority, which is unbecoming of a member of the disciplined Force.
3. Further, it is stated that the petitioner being the enrolled member of the Force of CISF unit ChPT Chennai had developed an irresistible and incorrigible attitude of committing acts of misconduct and indiscipline and failed to change his attitude and not shown any improvement in spite of charge appeals on three earlier occasions during his service for various misconduct. The above acts tantamount to gross misconduct and indiscipline and accordingly, the petitioner has been asked to submit his explanation.
4. The petitioner submitted his statement of defence against article of charges on 12.03.2013, and stated that the allegations are baseless. The petitioner has stated that the amount of Rs.410/- found in possession is the amount given by his colleague of Constable / GD Shyamjeet Kumar of the CISF unit ChPT, Chennai on 25.02.2013 at about 1655 hours is the amount of cancellation of reservation ticket. Therefore, the petitioner has stated that he has not violated any office memorandum and lawful order of the superior authority as alleged in the article of charge No.01.
5. The petitioner, at the outset, denied both the article of charges and disciplinary authority proceeded with the departmental enquiry. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and defended his case. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 22.05.2013, held that the charges framed against the charged official / writ petitioner are proved beyond any doubt. Raising objections against the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted his representation on 06.06.2013. The disciplinary authority accepting the findings of the enquiry officer in his enquiry report passed the final order in proceedings dated 10.07.2013, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary and gratuity benefits. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 15.07.2013 and the appeal was dismissed by the 4th respondent / the appellate authority on 0
The principle of proportionality of punishment is crucial in determining the appropriate penalty for proved charges of misconduct.
The court established that the punishment of compulsory retirement must be proportionate to the gravity of the proved charges and should consider the previous conduct of the employee.
The punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the gravity of the offense of having excess pocket money.
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision on compulsory retirement, emphasizing limited judicial review regarding the appropriateness of punishment imposed, unless it is found to be shoc....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, the need for evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of guilt, and the requirement for the penalty to b....
In judicial review of disciplinary matters, courts do not re-appreciate evidence or sit as appellate authorities. Interference is restricted to cases involving violation of natural justice, procedura....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's act of unauthorized absence from duty constituted 'misconduct' under the CISF Rules, leading to the imposition of the punishm....
The Court upheld the penalty of removal from service based on the petitioner's admission of charges, failure to submit written explanations, and the consideration of the petitioner's previous conduct....
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
