2025:CGHC:59046-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 891 of 2025 SHOAIB DsSA iHN iggnOW iteA a A dl IR Bbyy ANWARD21+ 01 a 0 2: t 52 e5 33 :. 0 1:327.06 1 - Director General Central Industrial Security Force Headquarters Block No. 13 C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 2 - Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force Central Sector Headquarter Bhilai District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force Secl Unit Bilaspur Headquarter, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Commandant Central Industrial Security Force Unit Secl Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus Anupam Devnath S/o Shri Govind Devnath Aged About 34 Years Constable Gd Cisf Unit Secl Bilaspur, R/o Pragati Nagar, Post Office Dipka, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI For Respondent(s) : Shri Anupam Devnath, Respondent in person Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

05.12.2025

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2023, an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal.

2. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application. Delay of 68 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2898/2024 whereby and whereunder the writ petition of the writ petitioner/respondent herein has been allowed in part. For the sake convenience the parties are referred as per their status in the writ Court.

4. Case of the writ petitioner is that during the course of his service on the post of constable/GD, a departmental enquiry was contemplated against him and four charges of indiscipline and misconduct have been framed. In the said proceedings the petitioner submitted a reply. However, according to the petitioner, without considering his reply, passed the removal order. Further case of the petitioner is that he has never committed any serious misconduct or criminal act during his entire career. Against the order of removal, he preferred an appeal which has been rejected. Subsequently, he approached this Court by filing WPS No. 2898/2024. The said petition has been allowed in part by the order impugned observing thus:-

“ xxx xxx xxx

14. In view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner for the alleged misconduct appears to be disproportionate. Accordingly, while this Court does not interfere with the impugned order to the extent that it pertains to the finding of misconduct, it does interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed. This Court holds that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct alleged, which is not of such grave nature as to warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal.

15. Consequently, the punishment of removal from service, as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority, is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to reconsider the quantum of punishment and to impose a lesser penalty, other than removal from service, in accordance with the applicable CISF Rules. The Disciplinary Authority shall pass appropriate orders within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order.

16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part, in the terms indicated above.”

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondents would submit that the learned Single Judge has passed the order impugned without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in its true perspective. He would submit that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law and by observing the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was afford