The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's role in disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring fair treatment and compliance with natural justice. The judgment also emphasized that the degree of proof necessary in disciplinary proceedings is based on 'preponderance of probability' and that the court's interference with the quantum of punishment is limited to cases where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

1. Brief factual matrix of the case is that petitioner, while working in Special Task Force, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Unit NAPP, Narora, District Bulandshahar, was suffered with a complaint and after preliminary inquiry following “Articles of Charge” alongwith “Statement of Allegations” were framed and served upon alongwith list of documentary evidence and witnesses :

“Articles of Charge framed against No. 874480683 SI/Exe D.K. Singh, Spl. Task Force, CISF, NAPP, Narora-

Gross indiscipline and misconduct in that he, on 2.10.1991, between 2130 hrs and 2300 hrs. misbehaved and threatened Inspr (Exe) A.K. Pradhan, Shift Incharge, Plant Gate, employee of 66 KV Sub Station and Service Buildings, by pointing his Service 9 mm SAP Carbin-o while, deployed on duty, and created disturbance and commotion at the Plant Site, NAPP Narora, resulting in the employee assembling and protesting a Main Gate, and Service Buildings, NAPP Plant Site.”

“Statement of Allegations in support of Articles of charge framed against No. 874480683 SI/Exe D.K. Singh, Special Task Force, CISF Unit, NAPP Narora

No. 874480683 SI/Exe D.K. Singh, Special Task Force, CISF Unit, NAPP Narora. He was deployed on ‘C’ Shift Area Incharge of STF Patrolling with 9 mm Carbine on 2.10.1991.

2135 hrs. when …. Shift, Incharge, Plant Site Main Gate, met SI D.K. Singh, casually inquired from him and conveyed his greeting the SI had returned to the Unit after completing Promotion Cadre Course, after two months. At that time, it is reported that SI whipped his 9 mm Service SAF Carbine and pointed the same at the Inspector with a treat to shoot him.

After this, he left the Main Gate Area and the Inspector followed him with some Int. Staff, after checking his state of health and condition from another STF SI S.K. Gularia, who expressed ignorance. The Inspr. later met the SI again at Watch Power No. 3 Area, inside the Plant Site. The SI again misbehaved with the Inspector, by pointing his weapon at him. Inspector A.K. Pradhan told him that such misbehavious and misconduct would lead to serious consequences and persuaded him to certain extent. After the persuasion by the Inspector, SI D.K. Singh left the place in a hurry.

Subsequently Inspector A.K. Pradhan, informed the matter to Assistant Comdt B.K. Sharma, AC(P). The employees of 66 KV Sub Station also reported about the misbehaviour of the SI-SI D.K. Singh, with them there, by threatening to shoot them all. On getting information Shri B.K. Sharma, Asst. Comdt. (Plant) directed Inspectors -OPS Chauhan, Coy Comdr ‘A’ Coy and G.P. Bartwal, Incharge STF to such to the spot. The Inspectors also rushed to the main gate. By this time, SI D.K. Singh left the Sub Station Area. Subsequently, Shift Incharge, Inspector A.K. Pradhan, along with Inspectors OPS Chauhan and Bartwal searched the area SI D.K. Singh and later located him at Service Buildings. In the meanwhile, they were informed that SI D.K. Singh, was creating disturbance at Service Buildings. When they reached at service buildings, they found SI D.K. Singh pointing his 9 mm SAF Barbine at a civilian boy, who was sitting inside the counter at Service Buildings. He has also threatened to shoot down the employees of the outgoing shift, who have gathered at the spot and who attempted to intervene to find out the reasons. At about 2315 hrs. Asst. Comdts B.K. Sharma and B.K. Bhattacharya also reached the Gate; by that time, the SI was also brought down under control and taken to the Main Gate. In the meanwhile, the employees of the Plant have assembled at the Main Gate and also at Service Buildings, protesting against the serious misconduct and unruly behaviour of SI D.K. Singh. The agitated employees were however, subsequently pacified.”

2. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to above referred charge and memorandum of allegations denying all allegations. Thereafter inquiry was conducted and as many as 13 witnesses were examined, who were cross-examined also and the