SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
Udesh Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25313 of 2023
Decided On : 07-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. S. Biswal, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Panda, CGC along with Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI.

The court held that a disciplinary authority must reconsider the punishment imposed when a charge is not proven, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 - Rule 34(v) and Rule 34(viii) - Disciplinary proceedings - Petitioner, a Constable, faced charges of misconduct and indiscipline, resulting in a punishment of reduction in pay and subsequently challenged the orders passed by different authorities. The Revisional Authority reduced the punishment duration but did not change the nature of the punishment despite finding one charge not proven. (Paras 4.1 to 6.4)

(B) Natural Justice - The petitioner contended that principles of natural justice were not adhered to as his defense was not properly considered during the proceedings. (Paras 5.4 and 6.2)

Facts of the case:
The case arises from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Constable for alleged misconduct, including threatening a colleague and disobeying orders, resulting in a pay reduction. The petitioner argued that the charges were not properly established and led to an excessive penalty.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Revisional Authority did not sufficiently address the unproven charge and remitted the matter for a fresh decision on punishment against the backdrop of procedural fairness and substantial justice.

Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings and resulting punishment were justified in light of the Revisional Authority’s findings regarding the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the punishment must align with the findings of the authorities, particularly where a charge is not proven, stressing the need for a just and proportionate disciplinary response.

Result: The matter was remitted for a fresh decision on punishment by the Revisional Authority.

Table of Content
1. procedures for disciplinary charges outlined. (Para 3 , 4)
2. opposition's defense of disciplinary proceedings. (Para 5)
3. court's reasoning for remanding the punishment review. (Para 6)
4. final disposal of the writ petition. (Para 7)

ORDER :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.3 vide order dated 14.07.2022 under Annexure-3, further confirmed by the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.4 on 01.10.2022 under Annexure-5, and order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Revisional Authority-Opp. Party No.5 under Annexure-7.

4. It is contended that petitioner while working as a Constable in CISF Unit, NALCO Damanjodi, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 11/12.02.2022 under Annexure-1 with the following charges:-

Article-I

“That on 03.02.2022 at about 1337 hrs No. 140504110 Const/GD Udesh Kumar of Mines Coy, CISF Unit NALCO Damanjodi snatched mobile phone from No. 942296901, HC/GD R.N.S. Gujar (CHM) and thereafter by weaving a FARSA like a life threatening tool (a type of local axe used in Odisha) he threatened to kill HC/GD R.N.S. Gujar. Such act on the part of No. 140504110 Constable/GD Udesh Kumar amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders superiors. Hence, the charge.

Article-II

That, On 03.02.2022, No.140504110, Const/GD Udesh Kumar, Mines Coy of CISF Unit NALCO Damanjodi disobeyed the lawful orders passed by. the superior, breached the discipline of Unit barrack, put barrack living personnel in an embarrassment situation of this Unit, created an atmosphere of terror and also argued with No.942296901, HC/GD R.N.S. Gujar (CHM) by using un-parliamentary and vulgar language. Such act on the part of No.140504110 Constable/GD Udesh Kumar amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and disobedience of lawful orders superiors. Hence, the charge.

Article-III

That 03.02.2022 at 1630 hrs, No.140504110 Const/GD Udesh Kumar, Mines Coy of CISF Unit NALCO Damanjodi was called for counseling by Dy. Commandant/Mines at his office chamber but by defying such instructions he replied that he was detailed in night shift duties & there was no written order with him to go for office. Such act on the part of No.140504110 Constable/GD Udesh Kumar amounts to gross indiscipline and violation of lawful orders of his superior. Hence, the charge.”

4.1. It is contended that petitioner not only filed his reply to the Memorandum under Annexure-2 but also participated in the enquiry so conducted. However, without proper appreciation of the reply so submitted by the petitioner under Annexure-2, O.P. No.3 while disposing the proceeding vide order dated 14.07.2022 under Annexure-3, imposed the punishment as provided under Rule-34(v) of CISF Rules, 2001 (in short Rules). Rule-34(v) of the Rules reads as follows:-

(v) save as provided for in clause(viii) below, reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the enrolled member will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.”

4.2. It is contended that petitioner was imposed with the following punishment by Opp. Party No.3 vide order dated 14.07.2022:-

“Reduction of Pay by 02 stages from Rs.28,400/- to Rs.26,800/- in level-3 of the pay matrix for a period of 02 years. It is further directed that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.”

4.3. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment passed by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure- 3, petitioner preferred an appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top