IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12447 of 2010

======================================================

Mukund Kumar Singh S/o Late Vijay Kumar Singh R/O Vill. And P.O. Phul

Malik, P.S. Sahebpur Kamal, Distt.- Begusarai

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India

2.

The Inspector General Of Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi

3.

The Deputy Inspector General Of Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern

Zone, New Patliputra, Bo

4.

The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Kh Stpp,

Kahalgaon, Distt.- Bhagalpu

5.

The Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Kh Stpp,

Kahalgaon, Distt.- Bhaga

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Manoj Priyadarshi, Advocate

Mr. Jogendra Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate

Mr. Lokesh, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 20-09-2022

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:-

“For issuance of writ in the

nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the

order of dismissal dated 09.04.2010 vide

letter no. V-15014/Kh STPP/DISC/2010 by

which the petitioner was dismissed from

service which is quite illegal in the eye of law

and also for issuance of writ in the nature of

MANDAMUS for direction, directing the

Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in

service with all full back wages and

continuity in service. And for any other

relief/reliefs for which the petitioner would

be found entitled under the facts and

circumstances of the case.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.12447 of 2010 dt.20-09-2022

2/5

02. Petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings

and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from

service on 09.04.2010. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

order of dismissal he preferred appeal before appellate authority

on 05.05.2010 under Rule 46 of Central Industrial Security Force

Rules, 2001 (for short “Rules, 2001”).

03. One of the contention raised by the petitioner is that

the appellate authority had relied on preliminary enquiry report

and the same was not part and parcel of the disciplinary

proceedings as it is evident from the disciplinary authority order of

dismissal, therefore, the appellate authority has taken extraneous

material into consideration while confirming the order of dismissal

dated 09.04.2010.

04. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has

not disputed that appellate authority has taken note off preliminary

enquiry report and the same was not subject matter of disciplinary

proceedings and disciplinary authority has also not relied on

preliminary enquiry report.

05. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

06.The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary

proceedings and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of

dismissal from service on 09.04.2010 and it was affirmed by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12447 of 2010 dt.20-09-2022

3/5

appellate authority on 28.06.2010. The aforesaid contention of the

petitioner that the appellate authority has considered extraneous

material which is not part and parcel of disciplinary authority’s

order dated 09.04.2010 in dismissing the petitioner from service.

Rule 52 of Rules, 2001 relating to consideration of appeals reads

as under:-

“ 52 Consideration of appeals. —

(1) In the case of an appeal against an

order of suspension, the appellate authority shall

consider whether in the light of the provisions of

32 [rule 33] and having regard to the

circumstances of the case, the order of suspension

is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order

accordingly.

(2) In the case of an appeal against the

order imposing any of the penalties specified in

rule 34, or enhancing any penalty imposed under

the said