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

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 12978 of 2002 Subhash Chandra Kushwaha -Vs-

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. K. B. S. Mahapatra Mr. Aditya Shit For the Union of India : Mr. Swapan Kumar Nandi Ms. Banani Bhattacharya Heard on : 13.03.2025 10.06.2025, 04.09.2025 Judgment on : 30.01.2026 Uploaded on : 04.02.2026 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter called CISF) was posted at CISF Unit, Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation (hereinafter called MAMC).

2. The petitioner had been issued with a Memorandum of Charge under Rule

34 of CISF Rules 1969 by the Commandant dated 8th December 2002.

3. Despite denial of the allegations by the petitioner a Departmental Enquiry was conducted against him and the Disciplinary Authority by its letter dated 2nd March 2001 forwarded a copy of the Enquiry report seeking representation.

4. The petitioner through an application dated 7th March 2001, sought for tested documents and additional documents for preparation of his representation, which were supplied to him by the Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 23rd March 2001.

5. The petitioner stated, by his letter dated 4th April, 2001 representation against the enquiry report was submitted.

6. The Disciplinary Authority, by its purported Final order dated 27th April

2001, mechanically and arbitrarily imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage.

7. Against the said Final order of Penalty the petition preferred an appeal dated 23rd June 2001 before the Deputy Inspector General, Kolkata.

8. The Appellate Authority by the vide order dated 27th December 2001 set aside the final order dated 23rd June 2001 and directed a de novo proceedings from the stage of issue of charge sheet.

9. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter by its Memorandum dated 5th March

2002 issued a fresh charge-sheet.

10. The petitioner stated being aggrieved by the said appellate order he preferred a Revision Petition dated 3rd July 2002 before the Inspector General on several grounds which inter alia included that there was no provision in the CISF Rules to conduct de novo proceedings.

11. The Inspector General by his letter dated 23rd August, 2002 communicated there was provision to prefer revision petition against the order of de novo enquiry.

12. The Inspector General avoided to decide as to whether in absence of any provision in the rules a de novo enquiry could be ordered or not.

13. The petitioner stated though there was provision of revision against the appellate order, the Revisional Authority mechanically did not interfere with the Appellate Order.

14. Moreover, if successive enquiries were conducted on the self-same cause of action the disciplinary proceedings would be a never ending process.

15. The respondent failed to appreciate the very inception of the proceedings was based on a defective charge-sheet.

16. Without considering the petitioner’s reply the Disciplinary Authority had appointed Enquiry Officer and in respect of de novo enquiry, which was not statutory.

17. The petitioner stated the respondents should not have permitted to conduct de novo enquiry after the defence had been disclosed.

18. The petitioner stated once the petitioner had undergone the period of mental agony, anxiety and pain, he should not be compelled to undergo another period of mental strain for the lapses caused by the Disciplinary Authority.

19. The petitioner stated the Inspector General had opined there was no provision to prefer revision petition against the order of de novo enquiry and his silence about the non-existence of provision in the service rule to conduct de novo enquiry was mala fide, unfair and unjust.

20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision to conduct de novo enquiry was speculative, harassive and torturous and concerned respondent had deliberately and falsely implicated the petitione