Disciplinary proceedings under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules require strict adherence to procedural norms; preliminary articles of charges do not warrant judicial interference unless they infringe on rights or suffer from significant procedural defects.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No.466 of 2025 challenging the article of charges served through a memorandum dated 10^th December, 2024 was filed by the petitioner (the appellant herein) raising several grounds, some of which touches upon the merit of the case and some on the applicability of the relevant rules. By the impugned order dated 8^th January, 2025, the writ petition was dismissed with categorical observation that the petitioner will participate in the proceeding initiated on the basis of the said article of charges and shall also cooperate in bringing the same to its logical conclusion. Correspondingly, the department was also directed to give a sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defense and an independent finding would be arrived at in an impartial manner.

2. The memorandum containing the article of charges is solely founded upon an allegation that the appellant, at the time of securing the employment to the post of Constable/GD in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), falsely represented himself as an Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate, which tantamounts to a grave misconduct.

3. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (in short, ‘the Rules’) postulates that at the time of drawing up or causing to draw up the substance of imputation, the requirements indicated therein have to be strictly followed and having not followed the same, the article of charges is per se illegal, defective, invalid and, therefore, no impediment is caused in the writ Court to quash and set aside the same. He further submits that if the article of charges is framed and served upon the delinquent after inordinate delay, the same shall not be treated as a sustainable action by the authority and are liable to be quashed and set aside at such stage.

3.1. To support the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed upon the judgments of the apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh , reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 , State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan , reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 and P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board , reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636

3.2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant vociferously submits that the definition of "Socially and Educationally Backward Classes" (SEBC) in Section 2 (e) of the Odisha Reservation of Posts and Services (For Socially and Educationally Backward Classes) Act, 2008 means the backward classes as defined in 2(a) of the Odisha State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993 and, therefore, the stand of the authority as taken in the article of charges is unsustainable.

4. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) submits that there is no infirmity and/or illegality in the judgment of the learned single Judge in relegating the appellant to participate in a Disciplinary Proceeding, which is still pending and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal. It is further submitted that the Court should not interfere at this stage of the framing of the article of charges or a service thereof upon the delinquent, as the scope and the jurisdiction exercised by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this regard is very limited. He fervently submitted that mere framing and service of the article of charges cannot be construed as a final opinion expressed by the Disciplinary Authority, but is a preliminary stage of determining the issues concerning the misconduct, obviousl