THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No. 604 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri P.G.Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.G.Bhanu Priya, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. L.Pranathi Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents.

2. This Intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 in W.P.No.15340 of 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the order dated 26.03.2014 passed by respondent No.2-Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) is confirmed by dismissing the writ petition.

Brief facts of the case

3. The present dispute arises on 20.11.2008, wherein the appellant/writ petitioner on the pretext of repair of defective delivery valve, alleged to have cover up the incident of pilferage of 4000 liters of diesel by mala fide intention by help of some employees of National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) Limited and tanker drivers, who were at the relevant time serving as Deputy Commandant at the NMDC unit in Kirandul. The primary issue for determination pertains to the appellant’s authorization of the release of the diesel tanker, which, upon interception and subsequent inspection by Head Constable V.R.S. Reddy, was discovered to exhibit a discrepancy between the quantity purportedly decanted from the tank and the quantity remaining therein.

4. The appellant, after consultation with officials of NMDC, accepted the explanation tendered by the driver attributing the discrepancy to a defective valve and consequently directed that the tanker be repaired and the diesel re-decanted. Subsequently, NMDC instituted action against its officials through a vigilance enquiry about the un-decanted vehicle in connection with an alleged attempt to pilfer diesel, wherein the appellant appeared as a witness. However, only in July 2011, i.e. after three years of the alleged incident, the appellant was served with a charge memo dated 01.07.2011. The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant based on a report from NMDC, accusing him of a mala fide attempt to conceal the incident. Following a departmental enquiry, the charge against the appellant was held to be established.

5. Further, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) upon reference by the respondents recommended the imposition of the prescribed penalty, which was effected by the Disciplinary Authority on 26.03.2014; that the challenge to the impugned order before the learned Single Judge was dismissed, giving rise to the present appeal.

Contentions of the appellant

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the non- disclosure and non-supply of the preliminary enquiry reports by DIG Nayeem and Commandant Zhophoneye has violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. Further, the issuance of charge memo after a period exceeding three years from the date of the incident was not only unwarranted but also actuated by mala fide intentions, which is clearly intended to adversely affect the career of the appellant at the behest of vested interests.

It is further contended that the departmental enquiry was fundamentally flawed due to procedural impropriety. This is demonstrated by the arbitrary change of the Enquiry Officer during the course of the enquiry, the denial of the appellant’s request to summon material witnesses who are essential for adjudication and the holding of a hearing after the Enquiry Officer had already submitted his report, all of which are clear violations of established enquiry procedures.

The appellant asserts that the finding of the learned Single Judge that it shall not interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse and as such, it is contended that the enquiry officer failed to afford the reasonable opportunity. However, it is contended t