Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
Mohd. Asgar Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through Home Secy. and others – Respondents
Writ A No.4562 of 1998
Decided on : 26-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : H.G.S.Parihar, Nakul Dubey, P C Misra, Shivam Sharma
For the Respondent: Rakesh Sharma, Deepanshu Dass, Dinesh Kumar Pandey, I H Farooqui, Raj Kumar Singh, Sanjiv Srivastava

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the authority to appoint an inquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings lies with the disciplinary authority as defined in the CISF Rules, and that mere allegations of bias or procedural irregularities do not suffice to overturn disciplinary actions unless actual prejudice is demonstrated.

Headnote:
CISF - Disciplinary Proceedings - CISF Act, 1968, Section 9(3); CISF Rules, 1969, Rule 34, Rule 29-A, Rule 7-A - The court examined the legality of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under the CISF Act and Rules, emphasizing the authority of the Deputy Commandant as the disciplinary authority. It interpreted the provisions regarding the appointment of inquiry officers and the necessity of following principles of natural justice. The court concluded that the inquiry was conducted fairly, and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself, ultimately upholding the dismissal order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in CISF, was dismissed from service for alleged misconduct during election duty, including sleeping on duty and threatening colleagues. He challenged the dismissal and subsequent orders, claiming bias in the inquiry process and lack of fair treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the CISF Rules, and the Deputy Commandant was the appropriate authority to appoint the inquiry officer. The court held that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry without raising objections and failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the alleged irregularities.
Issues: Whether the inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with the CISF Rules, and whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with natural justice and statutory provisions, not to reassess the merits of the case. It emphasized that the burden of proving prejudice lies with the petitioner, who failed to do so.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the dismissal order and the appellate and revision orders as being lawful and justified.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.

(1) Heard Mr. Shivam Sharma, learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Deepanshu Dass, learned Counsel representing the Union of India/respondents.

(2) The present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner in the year 1998 i.e. about 26 years ago, impugning order dated 3/4.12.1996 (Annexure No.1), 01.08.1997 (Annexure No.2) and 24.06.1998 (Annexure No. 3) and thereby seeking his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

(3) Briefly stating, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in CISF on 12.04.1987 and after training, he was posted at CISF KCC Khetri, Rajasthan and subsequently he was transferred to PGUTPP, Uchahar Unit of CISF in the year 1991 and thereafter to Rae Bareli unit of CISF on 10.08.1994. It has been claimed that the petitioner was thereafter sent in election duty in the month of April, 1996, wherein a memorandum dated 09.06.1996 came to be issued to him. The said memorandum inter-alia alleged that on 07.06.1996 between 21.00 Hours to 5.00 Hours, the petitioner’s duty was assigned at Quarter Guard and apparently, in the midnight, the Company Hawaldar Major checked the Quarter Guard as usual at about 2:00 hours, wherein the petitioner was found to be absent from the place of duty and he was found sleeping with rifle on his side in his room No. 22 and, as such, on the instance of Surendra Rai and Suraj Mani, the petitioner was woken from his sleep and sought an explanation. However, the petitioner failed to give any reply and instead went back on his duty. It is stated that the petitioner, after the service of the aforesaid memorandum, gave his written explanation on 09.06.1996.

(4) However, in the interregnum, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was also served with a charge-sheet on 23.06.1996 levelling charges on four counts. The 1st being, he was found sleeping on duty, which amounted to dereliction of duty; the 2nd being hurling abuses on colleagues and threatening them on 10.06.1996 at about 2:30 hours, which again amounted to violation of rules and amounted to serious indiscipline; the rd being his absence from the assigned duty at the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad on 12.05.1996, amounting to dereliction of duty; and the 4th charge being absence from rollcall parade on 12.05.1996 amounting to defiance of orders of higher authorities.

(5) The petitioner appears to have given explanation to all the four charges. However, it seems thereafter, one Mr. I.P Singh, Inspector was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 20.07.1996. Apparently, the petitioner represented before his higher authority for change the said Inquiry officer, terming him to be an interested person, which, however, came to be rejected on 20.08.1996. The petitioner alleged bias against the inquiry officer on the ground that some earlier allegations levelled against the petitioner by the same said inquiry officer was found to be wrong and he was also exonerated from the said charges on the said earlier occasion. Thus, the petitioner alleging the inquiry officer to be biased sent several representations to his higher officers but without any success.

(6) Records further reveal that after the aforesaid failure to change the inquiry officer, the petitioner went on to participate in the said enquiry proceedings and the department produced several witnesses, including PW-1(Surajmani), PW-2(Surendra Rai), Pw-4 (Subhas Ram), PW-5 (Chottey Rai), PW-6 (J.K. Hambram), PW-7 (L.D Joshi), who all were cross-examined by the petitioner. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 08.09.1998 and subsequently a copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on 12.10.1998, giving him opportunity to give his explanation against the said report.

(7) It appears that the petitioner gave a representation against the said inquiry report on 02.11.1996. However, it seems that the said explanation did not find favour with the competent authority and, as such, t