Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K.R.K. Kutty - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
WP No. 26032 of 2014 & MP No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 28-06-2022
CISF Rules - Disciplinary Proceedings - Withholding of Increment - Rule 37 of CISF Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Constable in CISF, was charged with gross misconduct for willfully absenting himself from duty and seeking medical rest to evade disciplinary action. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding one increment for three years, which was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's absence from duty and subsequent visit to the hospital were deliberate attempts to avoid duty, and the punishment imposed was not disproportionate considering the established facts and circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate in light of his claimed health issues and mitigating circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the intention of the petitioner to absent himself from duty was established through the sequence of facts, and the punishment imposed was justified based on the established facts and circumstances.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent dated 09.12.2013 in his order No.V-11015/48/Anu/SZ/2013/8961 confirming the order of the third respondent dated 26.07.2013 in his order No.V-11014/ RSTPS(R)/Appeal/Adm.4/KRKK/2013/1789 confirming the order of the fourth respondent dated 27.05.2013 in his final order No.V-15014/RSTPS(R)/Min/Adm.IV/KRKK/13/1294 and the order of the third respondent dated 18/19.02.2014 in his order No.E-24018/44/OSL/JKS/ Adm.III/2014-343 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all monetary benefits to the petitioner.)
1. The order of punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of three years which will not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay, confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, are under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was working as Head Constable and detailed for 'C' Shift duty. The petitioner states that after dinner, he felt some tiredness and senseless feeling and was unable to report for duty. The writ petitioner found some abnormalities and he informed about the same with Mr.P.Devarajan, CHM, HC/GD. Thereafter, he left the duty place without performing his duties. A charge memorandum was issued against the writ petitioner on 04.05.2013. The charge framed against the writ petitioner is as under:-
"No.844470537 HC/GD K.R.K.Kutty of CISF Unit RSTPS Ramagundam was detailed in 'C' shift from 2100 hours on 24.04.2013 to 0500 hours on 25.04.2013 at Gate No.1 for vehicle checking duty. He reported for duty at the Unit Line, but not proceeded with the other duty personnel for performing his assigned duty on that night and left for his quarter on his own. Thus he absented himself from 'C' shift duty on 24.04.2013. This act on the part of HC/GD K.R.K.Kutty amounts to gross misconduct, insubordination, unbecoming of a member of a disciplined Force."
3. The charge memorandum itself was issued for imposing minor penalty. Thus, the summary procedure was adopted as contemplated under Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as the 'CISF Rules', in short].
4. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 13.05.2013. The Disciplinary Authority considered the defence statement and issued the impugned order on 27.05.2013, imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of 3 years which will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 15.06.2013 and the said appeal was rejected in proceedings dated 26.07.2013. The revision filed by the petitioner on 31.08.2013 was also rejected by the second respondent on 09.12.2013.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that due to unavoidable circumstances and on the ground of health, the petitioner could not report for duty and he returned back to his quarters and thereafter, went to the Hospital for taking treatment. Therefore, the punishment imposed is disproportionate and liable to be set aside.
6. The petitioner states that the Disciplinary Authority had failed to consider the mitigating facts and circumstances and more specifically, the illness suffered by the petitioner. Thus the non-consideration of the medical grounds by the Competent Authority is to be considered for the purpose of setting aside the order of punishment.
7. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the procedures as contemplated under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules was followed by the Authorities and after receiving the written statement of defence from the writ petitioner, the minor penalty was imposed.
8. The contention of
The limited scope of interference to a punishment imposed pursuant to a departmental enquiry, barring a few exceptions, and the principle that re-appreciation of evidences is not permissible.
The court upheld the disciplinary action and punishment imposed by the appellate authority, emphasizing the seriousness of the proved misconduct.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including proper enquiry and opportunity to be heard, even for minor penalties.
Unauthorized absence from duty due to compelling circumstances beyond the employee's control, such as illness or hospitalization of a family member, cannot be considered willful and does not amount t....
Sufficient and effective opportunity should be granted to the delinquent in the domestic enquiry, especially when there is contemplation to impose a major punishment.
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.
The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in disciplinary proceedings and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing punishment.
The absence from duty must be proven willful for it to amount to misconduct, and the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
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
