SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AMAR DEEP – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WA/415/2022



2026:CGHC:8007-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 415 of 2022 Amar Deep S/o Suresh Chandra Aged About 38 Years R/o Cisf Unit, Kgps Bandipora, Nhpc Campus, Village - Karalpora, Post Office Bandipora, District Bandipora, State - Jammu Kashmir., Jammu And Kashmir. Present Posting Cisf, 12th Rb, Anantpura, Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

... Appellant versus

1 - Union Of India Through Director General, Central Industrial Security, Force At C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

2 - Inspector General, Cisf West Sector Headquarters, Navi Mumbai, District Mumbai, Maharashtra.

3 - Deputy Inspector General, Cisf Central Zone Headquarters, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District Durg, Chhattisgarh

4 - Commandant, Cisf 1st Reserve Battalion, Barwaha, District Khargone (M.P.).

5 - S.P. Khilare, Deputy Commandant, Cisf Unit, Asg, Mumbai., District Mumbai, Maharashtra.

... Respondents Digitally (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

signed by VED VED PRAKASH PRAKASH DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date:

2026.02.18 +0530 For Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Central Government Counsel Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

13/02/2026

1. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2016 assailing the order dated 23.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4423 of 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The appellant, who was serving as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), had questioned the legality and validity of the orders dated 23.03.2017, 27.07.2017 and 18.12.2017 passed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities respectively, imposing upon him the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition without adjudication on merits, the appellant has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court seeking setting aside of the impugned order and remand of the matter for consideration afresh in accordance with law.

2. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the appeal are that, the appellant was initially appointed as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and thereafter, upon qualifying through the Staff Selection Commission in the year 2011, was promoted and appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector. During the relevant period, he was posted at the CISF Unit, Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai. Subsequently, he was transferred to various places including Barwaha (Madhya Pradesh), Seepat (Chhattisgarh), Bandipora (Jammu & Kashmir) and is presently posted at Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan).

******* On 01.05.2016, while the appellant was discharging his duties in the morning shift at the AC Plant Duty Post at the Mumbai Airport Unit, five AC machines were installed at the duty point from which hot air was blowing and harmful gases were allegedly being emitted. Owing to the uncomfortable and unhealthy working conditions, the appellant shifted his chair approximately one foot towards the ventilation area. At that time, Respondent No. 5, namely S.P. Khilare, Deputy Commandant, allegedly visited the duty post and, without any provocation, slapped the appellant, resulting in internal injury and bleeding from the ear, which adversely affected his hearing capacity. The appellant asserts that the entire incident was captured in the CCTV footage installed at the premises.

******* The appellant thereafter sought medical treatment and submitted several complaints to his superior authorities against Respondent No. 5 alleging manhandling and misconduct. However, according to the appellant, no action was initiated again

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top