Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1164

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Dular Chand Ram, S/o- Lt Jogeswar Ram – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India The Secy., Ministry Of Home Affairs Govt. Of India, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 5310 of 2018
Decided On : 11-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S P Roy, Ms. N Rai, Mr A K Rai, Mr. J. Das, Adv.
For the Respondent: Asstt.S.G.I., Mr H Gupta (CGC)

In disciplinary proceedings, the court's scope of judicial review is restricted to examining the legality of the process and identifying procedural irregularities or perversity. It cannot re-appreciate evidence on merits or substitute its own findings, provided there is some evidence supporting the disciplinary authority's conclusions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service law - Departmental proceedings - Judicial review - Scope of - High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over findings of disciplinary authority - Interference warranted only if decision-making process is tainted by illegality, procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice, or if findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence - Courts cannot reassess sufficiency of evidence or substitute own conclusions where findings are based on evidence. (Paras 11, 12, 16)

(B) Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Proportionality of punishment - Where a member of a disciplined uniformed force is found guilty of gross misconduct such as sleeping while on duty and intimidation of a superior, and has a documented history of habitual misconduct, the penalty of removal from service is not shockingly disproportionate - Judicial interference is not warranted when due process and principles of natural justice are observed. (Paras 19, 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
A member of a uniformed force was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry for charges including dereliction of duty, misbehaviour towards a superior, and unauthorized absence. Having been found guilty by the Inquiry Officer, the individual was removed from service. The disciplinary action was subsequently upheld by both the appellate and revisional authorities. The individual filed a petition challenging these orders.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with regulations and principles of natural justice. Evidence clearly indicated the individual’s culpability, and the history of repeated prior misconduct was a valid consideration. The disciplinary authority’s findings were supported by evidence, and the punishment of removal was considered commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct in a specialized force.

Issues: Whether the disciplinary order of removal from service is legally infirm due to challenges regarding evidence appreciation and whether the punishment was disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial review is strictly limited to the legality of the decision-making process and does not extend to substituting findings based on re-evaluation of evidence when records contain sufficient evidence to support determinations. A punishment is considered valid if proportional to the established gravity of the misconduct, particularly in the context of maintaining order within a disciplined service.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history and factual charges against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9)
2. competing contentions regarding the standard of judicial review in disciplinary cases. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. high court's limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. findings of guilt based on evidence are not subject to judicial re-appreciation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. proportionality of punishment for gross misconduct in a disciplined force. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 14/08/2006, issued by the respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, and the consequent order(s) of the appellate as well as the revisional authorities, affirming such dismissal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was the Head Constable at the CISF unit BRPL, Bongaigaon at the relevant point of time, was issued a charge sheet on 27/02/2006 on the following charges:-

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I

"An act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force in that No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram of CISF Unit, BRPL Bongaigaon, while on "C" shift duty at Watch Tower No. 7 from 2100 hrs of 17.12.2005 to 0500 hrs of 18.12.2005 was found sleeping when checked by Insp/Exe M C Deka, Night Round Officer at about 0102 hrs on 18.12.2005. He threatened the Night Round Officer to take him t the Court and tried to intimidate him in performance of duty as well as to manipulate the remark given by NRO about him being found sleeping. This act on the part of No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram tantamount to gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, indiscipline and unbecoming a member of a disciplined Force" Hence the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II

"An act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force in that No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram of CISF Unit, BRPL Bongaigaon, while on "C" shift duty at Watch Tower No. 7 from 2100 hrs of 17.12.2005 to 0500 hrs of 18.12.2005 was found absent from his duty post when checked by Const J.C Kalita at 0258 on 18.12.2005 and by ASI/Exe A S Jha (NRO) at 0301 Hrs on 18.12.2005.Thus HC/GD/D.C Ram left his duty post unattended jeopardising with the security of the sensitive plant located in North East, without information of competent authority. This act on the part of No. 44690068 HC/GD D.C Ram tantamount to gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, indiscipline and unbecoming a member of a disciplined Force" Hence the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III

"An act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force in that No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram of CISF Unit, BRPL Bongaigaon, left the unit line at about 0600 hrs on 18.12.2005 without any permission or intimation of competent authority and returned back at about 1115 hrs on 18.12.2005 by remaining absent from the unit line from 0600 hrs to 1115 hrs on 18.12.2005 at his own. This act on the part of No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram tantamount to gross misconduct, indiscipline and unbecoming a member of a disciplined Force" Hence the charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-IV

"An act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force in that No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram of CISF Unit, BRPL Bongaigaon is not amenable to discipline and has not improved his conduct as expected from a member of discipline. Force, inspite of having been penalized/punished earlier on 13 (thirteen) occasion for his incorrigible habits during his short spell of 12 years service and thus, he is habitual offender and unbecoming a member of a disciplined Force like CISF"

4. Thereafter, upon the petitioner furnishing his reply, the same not having been found satisfactory, a disciplinary inquiry was constituted, which, after looking into the evidence adduced by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1164

Cases Referred (4)