IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
M.A. Rayees, Neyveli – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Rep. by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others – Respondents
WP. No. 4203 of 2012
Decided On : 18-08-2023
Writ Petition - Reduction of Pay - CISF Rules, Rule 36 - 11.02.2010 - 22.15 hrs - GD.No.690 - Enquiry Proceedings - Fair and Proper
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a constable in CISF, filed a Writ Petition to quash the order of punishment imposed upon him for creating nuisance in the family quarters. The incident occurred on 11.02.2010 at 22.15 hrs, resulting in a reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure and without denial of justice, and the penalty imposed was commensurate with the proved delinquency.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner in creating a ruckus in the family quarters under the influence of alcohol and the fairness of the departmental enquiry proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner's choice of language for the domestic enquiry and the lack of cross-examination of independent witnesses indicated fair and proper enquiry proceedings.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 31.03.2011 in his order No.V- 15014/L&R/SS/Rev/MAR/2011/-178 and confirming the order passed by the 3rd Respondent dated 29.10.2010 in its appellate order No.V- 15014/CISF/NLC/Appeal/Disc/MAR/2010/10654 and confirming the order passed by the 4th Respondent dated 03.09.2010 in his Final Order No.V- 15014/NLC/Disc/Maj/MAR/2010/8678 and quash the same.)
1. The Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 31.03.2011 in his order No.V- 15014/L&R/SS/Rev/MAR/2011/-178 and confirming the order passed by the 3rd Respondent dated 29.10.2010 in its appellate order No.V- 15014/CISF/NLC/Appeal/Disc/MAR/2010/10654 and confirming the order passed by the 4th Respondent dated 03.09.2010 in his Final Order No.V- 15014/NLC/Disc/Maj/MAR/2010/8678 and quash the same.
2. The Petitioner is the constable (No.974410025) in CISF Unit working at Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli. He filed the Writ Petition to quash the order of punishment imposed upon him viz., reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years, cumulatively.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the Petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force as Constable in the year 1997 and he was posted at Neyveli Lignite Corporation unit at Neyveli and was allotted quarters 207-D. One Murugan, who is also a Constable is his neighbour residing in the quarters at 207-B. The Petitioner was issued with a memo on 04.03.2010 for the Article of Charge that he had created nuisance in the family quarters on 11.02.2010.
3(a).The short facts of the Articles of charge issued to the Petitioner are that the Petitioner disturbed the peace and created nuisance in the family quarters area on 11.02.2010 at about 22.15 hrs, in an inebriated condition he beaten up the door of Quarter No.207/B. Hostel Type, Block-22 of No.92452290 Constable K.Murugan, by using filthy language and threatened to kill him and when constable K.Murugan came out from his quarters, he also tried to beat him. On hearing this, Constable N.C.Rao who is residing at first floor at the same block came and tried to pacify him and take him away from that place to his quarters but could not succeed. Meanwhile, constable V.Selvakumar, who was on the way to his quarters after completion of his ''B'' shift duty, came there and both of them took constable M.A.Rayees inside his quarters. HC/GD Shivalingaiah and Constable M.K.Swamy have had witnessed the incident. On getting information Insp/Exe R.Balashanmugam, I/C CIW and Insp/Exe. S.Shanmugaiah, Coy Commander ''L'' Coy, followed by Constable A.Manikandan, reached the spot and noticed that he was inside his quarters and shouting, abusing at Constable K.Murugan. Then both the Inspectors stood in front of his quarters and introduced themselves and asked him to come out from his quarters in order to sort out his problem and to take him to hospital in case of any need. At this Constable M.A.Rayees started abusing both the Inspectors in a very loud voice without any provocation, which resulted in entry G.D.No.690 at 23.00 hours.
3(b).After detailed written statement of defence and enquiry, the second showcause notice was issued, holding that the articles of charge framed against the Petitioner are substantiated and established and awarded punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years, cumulatively. The Appeal and Revision filed by the Petitioner are dismissed and hence the present Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the representation made by the Petitioner, pursuant to the initial charge as well as second show cause notice are not at all considered. His neighbour Constable K.Murugan, residing at 207-B has provoked the incident and it is a single in
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....
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.
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 punishment imposed must be commensurate with the conduct and charges leveled against the petitioner.
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....
Disciplinary actions must adhere to established procedures, and courts will not interfere unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or the process violated natural justice.
The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the rules of natural justice, evidence-based findings of misconduct, and the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings.
Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically lead to exoneration from departmental disciplinary proceedings, and the nature of the criminal charges and mitigating factors should be considered ....
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.