IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 23044 of 2013 Manoj Kumar Mandal @ M.K. Mandal -Vs-

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. K.B.S. Mahapatra For the Respondents/UOI : Mr. Pralay Bhattacharya Mr. Koushik Roy Heard on : 21.03.2025, 05.08.2025 Judgment on : 28.08.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to forthwith quash and set aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the final order bearing No. V-15014/Anu./Min-08/RTPP(P)/MKM/2013/961 dated 09.05.2013, and the appellate order bearing No. V-

15014/DSP/Anu./Appeal/2013/4297 dated 05.07.2013.

2. The petitioner was serving as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the CISF. A charge-sheet under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 was issued against him alleging gross negligence, indiscipline, and inefficiency in connection with an incident dated 16/17.03.2013 at Ghutitora Gate, RTPP, Purulia, where despite being the Shift In-Charge, he allegedly failed to take appropriate action against one Satya Prakash Mishra, a local shopkeeper, who created a disturbance under intoxication and threatened CISF personnel, leading to a blockade of the gate on the following day.

3. The petitioner received the charge-sheet on 26.04.2013 and submitted his written reply on 04.05.2013 denying the allegations and contending that the charges were baseless. However, his explanation was considered unsatisfactory, and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty by order dated 09.05.2013.

4. Aggrieved by the disciplinary proceedings, the penalty order, and the appellate order enhancing the penalty, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

5. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted as follows:-

(i) It was contended that the penalty of Censure was imposed without cogent reasons and in contravention of law.

(ii) The memorandum of charge was vague, inasmuch as the allegation of “failure to take appropriate action” did not specify what precise action was expected of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Under Section 11(2) of the CISF Act, 1968, any person found trespassing on the premises could be removed by a member of the Force, and in the instant case the petitioner had duly removed the intruder. Hence, no further action was warranted.

(iv) The incident in question pertained merely to one individual attempting to enter the plant premises to fetch water, which was prevented by the petitioner. Such minor incidents occur frequently in industrial establishments, and there existed no requirement to report the same to higher authorities. Accordingly, the allegation of “concealment” from senior officers was wholly unwarranted.

(v) Neither in the memorandum of charges, nor in the final or appellate orders, was it indicated as to what constituted the “appropriate action” allegedly not taken by the petitioner.

(vi) The intoxicated individual was not allowed entry inside the plant premises, and within the scope of the CISF Act and Rules, the petitioner had discharged his duty appropriately;

no further action was mandated.

(vii) The impugned penalty was founded upon a purported preliminary enquiry report, which was neither supplied to the petitioner nor disclosed as a material to be relied upon, thereby causing grave prejudice.

(viii) The proceedings were based on surmises and conjectures, in breach of the principles of natural justice, and without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of defence.

(ix) Despite the petitioner’s categorical denial of the charges, no regular enquiry was conducted; nor was any evidence adduced by the respondents. Instead, the authorities proceeded in an arbitrary and whimsical manner.

(x) The allegations contained in the memorandum of charge, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute misconduct,