Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
O. Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
The Director General Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 3729 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 4123 and 427 of 2019
Decided On : 21-07-2023
Writ Petition - Departmental Enquiry - Article 311 of the Constitution of India - [Article 311, Central Industrial Security Force Act] - The court upheld the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year, emphasizing that unless there is perversity writ large on the face of the impugned proceedings or gross violation of principles of natural justice, the court cannot interfere with departmental enquiries. The punishment was found to be proportionate to the offense and the appellate and revisional authorities independently applied their minds to the grounds raised by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, sought to quash the order confirming the reduction of his pay by one stage for a year, following a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him for alleged insubordination and misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no violation of the petitioner's rights under the Constitution of India and upheld the punishment, emphasizing the limited scope of interference in departmental enquiries.
Issues: Violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, fairness of the disciplinary proceedings, proportionality of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that unless there is perversity writ large on the face of the impugned proceedings or gross violation of principles of natural justice, it cannot interfere with departmental enquiries. The punishment must not be grossly disproportionate to the offense.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Call for the records and quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 12. 09.2018 through its Letter No. V-15014/CISF/SS/L&R/ Rev/ OG/ 19/ 2018-7612 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent vide appellate order No. 11014(1)/ APL-04/ OG/ SZ/ L AND R/ 2018/ 3555 dated 09.04.2018 and the order of the 4th respondent in Letter No. V-15014/ GHC/ AD.VI/ Disc/Major-OR/ RGN (S)/ 2018/ 383 dated 09.02.2018 ie. reduction of pay by one stage(in the revised matrix in level-6) from Rs.46,200 to 44,900/- for a period of one year. It is further ordered that during the period of reduction, the petitioner will not earn increments of pay and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay and direct the respondents to pay the deducted amount Rs.1300/- per month and the salary of the petitioner with effect from April 2018 to till the disposal of this Writ Petition.)
1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.09.2018, confirming the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 09.04.2018 and the order of the 4th respondent dated 09.02.2018 awarding a punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as a Head Constable at Rajiv Gandhi Memorial, Sriperumbudur from May 2015, having enrolled in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short CISF) even at the age of 20. On 15.05.2017, a Sub Inspector/EXE had used derogatory words defaming the petitioner causing severe mental torture to him. The petitioner lodged a compliant to the Unit Commander and followed up the same with subsequent reminders. However, the said S.I/EXE was merely admonished and sent off. The said S.I/EXE in order to take revenge on the petitioner for having lodged the said complaint, in turn lodged a complaint against the petitioner in respect of an incident that had occurred when the petitioner was on Turn Leave. The enquiry was conducted and pending enquiry the petitioner was suspended on 28.09.2017. The charge against the petitioner was that he entered the Unit Mess/Recreation hall and threatened the SI/EXE which was amounting to gross indiscipline, insubordination and misconduct and unbecoming of a member of a discipline force. The petitioner sent a reply to the said charge memo on 26.10.2017 and pleaded ''not guilty''.
3. After elaborate trial, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded by the authority, awarding punishment of a reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year. Despite an appeal and revision filed by the petitioner, the punishment only came to be confirmed. The said proceedings are under challenge mainly on the grounds that the entire enquiry was in gross violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The eye witness produced by the prosecution was not on duty as per the duty deployment chart and that the disciplinary authority did not furnish or provide the additional documents such as preliminary enquiry report, statement of witnesses, CCTV footage on the date of the alleged occurrence besides other grounds challenging the reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority for awarding the punishment which were also confirmed in appeal and revision.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the departmental enquiry was duly conducted and all necessary documents were furnished to the petitioner besides, also giving him sufficient time to submit his representation against the enquiry report. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority on the merits of the matter and therefore no interference is warranted by way of issuance of a Writ.
5. Heard Mr.P.Prakash Paul, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Jeyagane
Limited scope of interference in departmental enquiries unless there is perversity writ large on the face of the proceedings or gross violation of principles of natural justice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of discipline and hierarchical structure in uniformed services, particularly in cases involving assault on a senior officer.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary orders must comply with the principles and provisions of the applicable rules and regulations, including the requirement for vali....
The main legal point established is that fair and proper departmental enquiry proceedings, including the choice of language and cross-examination of witnesses, are crucial in determining the validity....
Disciplinary actions must adhere to established procedures, and courts will not interfere unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or the process violated natural justice.
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
