IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :-

The Hon’ble Justice Sujoy Paul And The Hon’ble Justice Smita Das De FMA 1537 of 2016 Yeshveer Vs.

Union of India and others For the appellant : Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Shruti Mitra, Adv.

Ms. Sumedha Mukhopadhyay, Adv.

For the respondent Union of India: Mr. Bishambhar Jha, Adv.

Mr. Uttam Basak, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 10.09.2025 Judgment on : 12.09.2025 SUJOY PAUL, J.:

1. This intra court appeal takes exception to the order of learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2015 passed in WP 25130(W) of 2015 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition wherein the appellant assailed the disciplinary proceedings and punishment order.

Admitted facts:-

2. The appellant was working as a constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and at the relevant time was posted in Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, Bongaigaon (BRPL). He was deployed at the main gate for the purpose of security. The department issued a major penalty charge-sheet to the appellant on 11th December, 2008. Three charges were leveled against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges in toto Dissatisfied with the appellant’s reply, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, in turn, recorded the evidence and prepared his enquiry report and found all the charges as proved against the appellant. The disciplinary authority agreed with the enquiry officer and by order dated 10th June, 2009 imposed punishment of ‘removal’ from service.

3. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after considering the points raised in appeal, passed the appellate order dated 20th August, 2009 and modified/substituted the punishment by imposing punishment of ‘reduction of pay to the stage from Rs.6990/-(PB) + Rs.2000/- (GP) to Rs.6460/- (PB) + Rs.2000/- (GP) in the time scale of pay for a period of three years w.e.f. 12.06.2009 with further direction that appellant will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay’.

4. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the appellate order by filing a revision on 28.06.2010 which came to be dismissed on 28th November, 2010 (Annexure P/6).

5. The appellant filed WP 25130(W) of 2015 to assail the appellate order and disciplinary proceedings. The said writ petition was dismissed on 15.12.2015. The order of learned Single Judge and disciplinary proceedings are subject matter of challenge in this intra-court appeal.

Contention of the appellant:

6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that sheet-charge is bad in law because (i) It is vague and ambiguous in nature. The charge-sheet should be clear and definite. One of the charges against the appellant is that during his absence, 16 strangers entered the industrial premises and 8 came out of the premises. However, their names and identity were not disclosed. This charge is vague in nature and is liable to be interfered with. (ii) The charge no.3 is bad in law because this charge relates to misconduct allegedly committed by the appellant in the year 2007 for which the appellant was already adequately punished. This previous misconduct and punishment could not have formed basis for framing charge no.3.

7. In other words, it was argued that for a misconduct committed in 2007, the appellant has already been punished and imposition of punishment by including previous misconduct amounts to imposing second punishment for the same misconduct.

8. The next submission is that the factual backdrop of the matter shows that the case of prosecution is based on a CCTV footage which is recorded in an electronic document i.e. C.D. The PW5 Shri Anjan Jyoti Baruah entered the witness box and clearly stated that he has not recorded the said C.D. and not deposed anything which gives sanctity