Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14346

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
Md. Fayazuddin – Appellant
Versus
Asst. Commandant, CISF Unit, RSTPS/NTPC, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.14631 of 2005

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Saiteja
For the Respondents: N. Bhujang Rao

In disciplinary proceedings, when charges are interconnected, proving only one charge necessitates a re-evaluation of the proportionality of the penalty, and appellate/revisional authorities are mandatorily required to record brief reasons for their decisions to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 - Rule 52(2) - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal from service - Proportionate punishment - Interconnected charges when only one is proven - Appellate and revisional authorities must provide brief reasons when affirming lower forum decisions - Failure to provide such reasons violates requirements of natural justice - Evidence assessment in disciplinary enquiries - Handwriting expert opinion relying on similarities is not conclusive without corroboration - Disciplinary enquiry cannot rely on documentary evidence without examining witnesses to prove contents - When charges are interconnected and only one is proved, and procedural lapses occurred, penalty of removal from service is disproportionate - Punishment modified to compulsory retirement. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) accused of misconduct, dereliction of duty, and breach of trust concerning the unauthorized sign-off of contractor letterheads regarding material entries in the plant. Following a departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that charge Nos. I and III were not proven while charge No. II was proven. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings regarding charges I and III and imposed the penalty of removal from service. Subsequent appeals and revisions were rejected by the higher authorities without reasoned orders.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the internal investigation process flawed, specifically regarding the reliance on documents without witness examination and the lack of reasoned orders from the appellate and revisional authorities. Given the interconnected nature of the charges and the fact that only one was purportedly proven, the Court held that the punishment of removal was disproportionate.

Issues: Whether the removal from service was legally sustainable given that only one of three interconnected charges was proven, and whether the appellate and revisional authorities provided adequate reasoning in their orders.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate or revisional authority must provide brief reasons while affirming an order from a lower forum. Furthermore, in disciplinary proceedings, charges found proved must be supported by admissible evidence, and where charges are interconnected, proving only a single charge does not necessarily justify the extreme penalty of removal from service.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of; penalty of removal from service modified to compulsory retirement.

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from Services vide Proc.No.V-11014 /39 /WZL /LC /SWS /04 /5427, dated 22.07.2004, passed by the respondent No.4 confirming the Orders dated 31.03.2004 passed by the respondent No.3 and Orders dated 07.02.2004 passed by the respondent No.2 as illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with back-wages.

Heard Sri K. Saiteja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Bhujang Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) Petitioner worked as a Constable in CISF Unit, RSTPS/NTPC, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District in the year 2003. Respondent No.2 issued a chargesheet under Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001 vide Memorandum No.V-15014 / Maj-03 / RSTPS(R) / ADM-IV /2003-2758 dated 23.07.2003. Respondent No 2 alleged that the petitioner put his signature on the two letter pads of M/s ABI Engineering Contractors on 01.03.2003, while not on duty, to benefit the contractors that they had brought 15 + 15 (Total 30) BT Drums of 200 Kgs. inside the Unit, whereas the said contractors have never brought the said drums. The authorities contended that the said contractors have brought “METTAL” , not BT Drums.

(b) On 27.03.2003, the Assistant Commandant enquired into the matter and recorded a statement where the petitioner denied the above mentioned allegation, and the authorities have further proceeded with the matter. Respondent No.2 issued a chargesheet on the following charges:-

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I

An act of gross misconduct, dereliction of duties and abusing official position on the part of No. 891402530 Ct/Gd Md. Fayazuddin of "B" Coy (now HQ Coy) of CISF Unit, RTPS Ramagundam, he with ulterior motive even not on duty put his signature on the two letter pads of M/s ABI Engineering Contractors dt. 01-03-2003 to benefit illegally to the concerned party thereby facilitated the contractors to fabricate evidence that M/s ABI Contractors had brought 15+15 (Total: 30) BT Drums of 200 Kgs whereas these 30 BT Drums had never been brought inside the Plant.

As per vehicle Incoming Register dated 01-03-2003 at Page No. 36, serial No. 63 & 65 Tractor No. AP-15X-1317 had brought the material described as "Metal" at 1428 hrs. & 1440 hrs. respectively inside the plant when No. 891402530 Ct/Gd Md. Fayzzuddin was not on duty. But to provide illegal benefit to M/s ABI Engineering Contractors, and to corroborate his illegal act, he managed to cut the entry made in Incoming Vehicle Register as B.T. Drums instead of Metal. Thereby No. 891402530 Ct/Gd Md. Fayazuddin indulged in serious misconduct in connivance with M/s ABI Engineering Contractors with an ulterior motive to provide illegal benefit to the said party which tantamount to unbecoming the member of Force. Hence the Charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - II

An act of Gross Misconduct, dereliction of duty and breach of trust in that No.891402530 Ct/Gd Md. Fayazuddin of "B" Coy (now HQrs Coy) of CISF Unit, RSTPS, Ramagundam, was asked to confirm his signature on 02 letters of M/s ABI Engineering Contractors letter pad dt. 01-03-2003 regarding permitting entry of 15+15 (Total 30) Bitumen Drums but Ct/Gd Md. Fayazuddin squarely denied the same in his statement deposed on 27-03-2003 whereas during the course of verification of signatures by hand writing experts i.e., Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, MHA, Hyderabad, it has been proved that the signatures available on 02 letters of M/s ABI Engineering Contractors pertained to Ct/Gd Md. Fayazuddin. As such, he tried to mislead the authorities by deposing false statement on dt. 27-03-2003 recorded by Shri L.D. Prasad, Asst. Commandant". Hence the Charge.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE - III

An act of Gross Misconduct and dereliction of duties in that No. 891402530 Ct/Gd Md. Fayazuddin of B Coy (no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14346

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADNamavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, JMd. Fayazuddin – AppellantVersusAsst. Commandant, CISF Unit, RSTPS/NTPC, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.14631 of 2005

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
Md. Fayazuddin – Appellant
Versus
Asst. Commandant, CISF Unit, RSTPS/NTPC, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.14631 of 2005