Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Suresh Kumar, P. Dhanabal, JJ
The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Patil Sambhaji Ananda – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.2359 of 2025
For the Appellants: Mr. K. Srinivasa Murthy
For the Respondent: Mr. A.S. Mujibur Rahman
The court affirmed that the enhanced punishment by the Revisional Authority was improper due to a lack of required procedural compliance following an initial disciplinary action.
Headnote:(A) Central Industrial Security Force Act, 2007 - Sections 4(2) and 9(2)(b) - Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 - Rule 36, 54 - Disciplinary actions and revision - Respondent, a Constable, assaulted a superior; punishment escalated from reduction in pay to removal by Revisional Authority - Writ Court set aside Revisional Authority's order, restoring Disciplinary Authority's decision, envisioning due procedure under applicable rules - Court held revision procedures adequate as per governing statutes, dismissing the appeal. (Paras 1-18)
(B) Disciplinary Procedure - Appellants contended that sufficient due process was adhered to during original proceedings, challenging undue interference by Writ Court with revisional findings; however, the subsequent escalation of the penalty without fresh enquiry was deemed inappropriate, underlining established legal procedural safeguards. (Paras 3, 5-15)
Facts of the case:
Respondent joined CISF as Constable; engaged in misconduct on duty leading to assault on superior officer. Disciplinary authority imposed reduced pay for three years, subsequently enhanced to removal by Revisional Authority.
Findings of Court:
The Writ Court determined that existing disciplinary process suffices under relevant rules and that serious consequences demanded adherence to statutory procedures; removal deemed disproportionate given the original punishment instituted by the Disciplinary Authority.
Issues: The court examined if the Revisional Authority's procedures aligned with statutory mandates regarding disciplinary actions, particularly focusing on the legitimacy of the enhanced penalty absent an adequate enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that revisional enhancement requires due procedural compliance, restoring the original penalty based on discretion exercised by correctly mandated disciplinary authority; mere misinterpretation of rules led to improper escalation of punishment.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed, order upholding Disciplinary Authority's decision restored.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts outlining disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the disciplinary action process. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on adhering to procedural protocols in disciplinary matters. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. findings pertaining to the appropriateness of the imposed punishment and procedural correctness. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. final conclusions drawn by the court regarding the appeal outcomes. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.DHANABAL,J.)
This Writ Appeal has been preferred as against the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.28797 of 2013 dated 29.07.2024, wherein the respondent herein has filed a Writ petition challenging punishment awarded to him by the Revisional Authority / 3rd Appellant in his order No.V- 15015/06/2013/L&R(SZ) 7385 dated 08.10.2013 enhancing the punishment ordered by the 4th appellant herein in his final order No.V- 15014/GHC/AD.VI/Maj/(ST)CPCL/2013/875 dated 28.02.2013 and to quash the same and to direct the appellants to take the respondent into the strength of Central Industrial Security Force as Constable and to pay all monetary benefits. The Writ Court allowed the petition with a direction to the Revisional Authority to follow the procedures adumbrated under Section 9 read with Rule 54 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
2. The short facts necessary to dispose of the Writ appeal are as follows:
The respondent joined in the Central Industrial Security Force [hereinafter referred as 'CISF'] as 'Constable' on 16.06.2007 and he reported at CISF Unit, KPL Ennore on 20.07.2010. While so, on 09.10.2012, the respondent was allocated for 'C' shift and he was not taken on duty by the shift incharge as he was in intoxicated condition. Thereafter, on the same day, at about 20.35 hours, the respondent along with another Constable GD Karmenge Narendra Hulasram of CISF Unit, EPL Ennore entered into SO's Recreation room of CISF Unit, Ennore, threatened with dire consequences and assaulted SI / Exe Niraj Kashyap of CISF Unit, Ennore in presence of other CISF Personnel and caused injuries. Thereafter, the respondent was placed under suspension on 10.10.2012 and Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 36 of CISF Rules were initiated vide a Charge Memorandum dated 03.11.2012. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority conducted enquiry proceedings and after following the procedures, imposed punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of 3 years, through an order dated 28.02.2013 and also directed that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
2.1. While so, the 3rd appellant had suomoto reviewed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and issued a Show Cause Notice to the respondent on 11.07.2013 proposing to enhance the punishment to that of 'removal from service' and the respondent also submitted his reply on 11.08.2013 and thereafter, the Revisional Authority imposed punishment of penalty of 'removal from service' vide order dated 08.10.2013. Challenging the said order passed by the 3rd appellant, the respondent filed a Writ petition in W.P. No.28797 of 2013 and the Writ Court allowed the Writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Revisional Authorities and restored the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and further directed the Revision Authority to conduct enquiry as per Section 9 of CISF Act read with Rule 54 of CISF Rules and to pass orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ appeal has been preferred.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Writ Court failed to appreciate that the respondent was issued a Charge Memo under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial
