IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

W.P.A. 30629 of 2014

A. Arivajagane

-Vs-

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Keshari

For the Union of India : Mr. Chandreyi Alam

Heard on : 03.03.2025, 21.05.2025, 08.08.2025

Judgment on : 02.12.2025 Uploaded on : 02.12.2025

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its constitutional writ

jurisdiction assailing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under the CISF Rules 2001, commencing with the issuance of charge memorandum dated 26.02.2008 and culminating in the order of removal from service dated 31.08.2008, which stood affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 22.12.2008. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned orders, reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages, arrears and all

consequential benefits.

2. Contextually the petitioner, then serving as a constable GD under CISF Unit DSP Durgapur, was entrusted with arms and ammunitions including a 7.62 mm SLR, magazines and live rounds. On 13.01.2008, after completion of duty, it was alleged that he failed to deposit one magazine and 15 live rounds issued to him and deposited the same only after a delay of 14 hours without cogent explanation. On the basis of these allegations of gross negligence, violation of unit standing orders and dereliction of duties, the departmental enquiry was initiated.

3. The petitioner denied all charges in his written reply. Nevertheless, the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and the enquiry procedure decided the charges to be proved. A copy of the report was furnished to the petitioner. Upon receipt of office representation, the disciplinary authority imposed the extreme penalty of removal from service.

His statutory appeal met the fate of rejection.

4. The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the premise that the disciplinary mechanism was conducted in flagrant disregard of fairness, objectivity and foundational tenets of natural justice. It was urged that the punishment was stinted by arbitrariness, discrimination and non-

application of mind.

5. The petitioner submitted the enquiry reflected by suppression of material facts shielded the real culprits. He alleged the missing ammunition was not misplaced through his negligence but was deliberately removed by Head Constable Ram Singh and “Kote Helper” Dilip Roy, who allegedly conspired to secure monetary advantage from him. The petitioner stated Ram Singh to have demanded Rs.11,000/- for returning the magazine and rounds. Though these allegations were raised consistently, the Enquiry Officer did not initiate any probe against the accused personal. The petitioner contended this intentional inaction demonstrated a predetermined and biased mindset.

6. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted as follows:- i. The petitioner highlighted statements of key prosecution witnesses were inconsistent during the preliminary inquiry and the departmental inquiry with sharp contrast and contrary statements. Witnesses PM-4, PW-6 and CW-1 allegedly altered their versions; despite these contradictions being highlighted in cross-examination, the Enquiry Officer glossed such material discrepancies. Evidence suggesting the active role of Ram Singh and Dilip Roy in removing and later returning the missing ammunition was, according to the petitioner, fully corroborated in cross-examination but remained unconsidered.

ii. It was further contended that several documents were served in Hindi, a language the petitioner was not conversant with, thereby disabling him from deciphering the contents. Despite requests, no defence assistant came forward to assist him due to regional barriers and the Enquiry Officer failed to address this predicament thereby resulting in denial of effective defence.

iii. On 13.01.2008, the petitioner was compelled to perform rifle duty despite an earlier entitlement to a shi