Due process must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings, including proper jurisdiction and fair opportunity for defense; failure to follow established protocols invalidates the punishment imposed.

JUDGMENT

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The instant Writ Petitions have been filed by Mr. Sandeep Yadav and Mr. Shelender Singh, (collectively referred to as the „Petitioners’), impugning the Orders dated 26.09.2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Orders”), passed by the Regulating Officer, Indian Coast Guard, Haldia (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent Authority”), wherein certain punishments were inflicted upon the Petitioners.

2. Since both the writ petitions arises out of separate albeit analogous Impugned Orders, both the writ petitions are being decided by a common Judgment, in order to avoid any confusion.

3. Vide the Impugned Orders, the Respondent Authority awarded punishment of simple imprisonment of 90 days as well as dismissal from the Indian Coast Guard service with effect from 26.09.2016 to the Petitioners herein. Additionally, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4357/2018 was deprived of his „Good Conduct Badge‟ as part of the punishment.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petitions are as follows:-

a. The Petitioners are the officers of the Indian Coast Guard (hereinafter referred to as “ICG”) and were carrying out their duties on the Indian Coast Guard Station (ICGS) Sucheta Kriplani at the relevant time.

b. As per the case of the Petitioners, it is stated that on 13.09.2016, Pradhan Navik Vijay Kumar, who was closer to the Petitioners, complained that he was suffering from a severe chest pain and as such, was not in a position to sail. Despite the same, the Executive Officer Himanshu Shekhar directed Pradhan Navik Vijay Kumar to carry out his duties as per the schedule.

c. On 15.09.2016, Pradhan Navik Vijay Kumar again suffered from severe chest pain while sailing on ICGS Sucheta Kriplani and fell unconscious on the floor. The officers nearby attempted to revive him back to life by giving him CPR several times, however, the attempt was unsuccessful and the Medical Officer on board declared Pradhan Navik Vijay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) dead due to heart attack.

d. It is stated that after the declaration of the deceased‟s death, the environment on ICGS Sucheta Kriplani became tense. Subsequently, , a verbal altercation took place between three officers (Petitioners herein and one S.B. Rapsang) and Executive Officer Himanshu Shekhar, wherein the latter was blamed for being the reason behind the deceased‟s death.

e. Material on record indicates that the Petitioners were alleged to have punched the Executive Officer Himanshu Shekhar out of sudden outburst and provocation. Resultantly, the Petitioners were taken in custody on 17.09.2016 at the Headquarters of ICGS, Haldia.

f. Thereafter, charges were framed under Section 22 (a) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the Petitioners for pushing and punching Executive Officer Himanshu Shekhar and for using insubordinate language. The charges farmed against the Petitioners reads as under:-

“1. Did at about 0545 hrs on 15 Sep 16, struck Asst Comdt Himanshu Shekhar (1102-D), thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 22 (a)

of.Coast Guard Act 1978.

2. This charge is tentative and may be altered depending on the outcome of the ROE.”

g. After the framing of charges, an Enquiry Officer was appointed for preparation of Record of Evidence (hereinafter referred to as “ROE”). The ROE was carried out from 20.09.2016 to 21.09.2016 i.e., within a period of 2 days and based on the same, the Respondent