The Patna High Court has held that the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable was excessively harsh and has directed the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty and impose a lesser one.
Justice Purnendu Singh passed the judgment while disposing of a writ petition filed by Deo Narayan Singh, who challenged the disciplinary order dated 05.02.2011, the appellate order dated 28.06.2011, and the revisional order dated 03.11.2011, all of which upheld his compulsory retirement from CISF with full pension and gratuity.
Background
The petitioner, a constable in CISF Unit at BCCL, Dhanbad, was charged under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 (as amended in 2007), based on allegations made by a loading clerk, Sahdeo Thakur. The charges included being absent from duty without permission, engaging in a scuffle with the loading clerk during duty hours, and previous misconducts for which he had been penalized 11 times during his service.
Following a departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority found the petitioner guilty and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The Appellate and Revisional Authorities upheld this decision.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was denied a fair hearing and not served with a preliminary enquiry report or a show cause notice before initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It was also contended that the punishment was disproportionate, particularly when the allegations were not fully proven and considering his length of service and conduct.
His counsel relied on the judgments in Union of India & Anr. v. R.K. Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 4059 of 2015) and Amrendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 600], where the Supreme Court held that penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct.
Respondents’ Arguments
Counsel for the Union of India submitted that all procedures under the CISF Rules were duly followed and that the petitioner had been given ample opportunity to defend himself. It was argued that the preliminary enquiry report was not listed as a necessary document and, therefore, not shared.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Purnendu Singh noted that the complaint by Sahdeo Thakur, which formed the basis of the enquiry, was not furnished to the petitioner, and there was no evidence of a proper preliminary enquiry being conducted. The Court emphasized that in matters involving major penalties, Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution are implicated, and the punishment must be reasonable.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the Court observed:
“The punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh, disproportionate and not commensurate with the nature of the charge proved against the respondent.”
The Court concluded:
“The punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh, hence, the matter remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority to impose lesser penalty, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and to extend monetary and service benefits to the petitioner.”
The High Court directed that the Disciplinary Authority complete this reconsideration within three months from the date of communication of the order.
