Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D. Jastin, vs The Inspector General, on 19 June, 2024
APHC010027432006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 23965/2006
Between:
D. Justin ...PETITIONER
AND
The Inspector General and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V PADMANABHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
2. Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel)
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.23965 of 2006
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
WRIT PETITION No.23965of 2006
ORDER:
Writ petitioner is a Constable in Central Industrial Security
Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF') and is governed by the
Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (Act No.50 of 1968)
(for short 'the CISF Act, 1968) and the Central Industrial Security
Force Rules, 1969. During the relevant period he was working in
CISF Unit, PPT, Paradeep, Orissa State, India. For acts of
indiscipline and dishonesty he was subjected to disciplinary
enquiry and was found guilty and departmental penalties were
inflicted. In that regard, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he filed the present
writ petition with a prayer which reads as mentioned below:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit, the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings
No.V-15014(1)/Maj-11/Disc/PPT/2k-8515 dated 16.11.2000
imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages from
Rs.3350/- to Rs.3200/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.3050-
75-4500 for a period of two years from the date of issue of
the order, that he will not earn increments of pay during the
period of reduction with cumulative effect as illegal and
arbitrary (ii) declaring proceedings No.V-11014/EZ/Ad.II/API-
09/2004/5734 dated 20.09.2004 issued by the Appellate
Authority as illegal and arbitrary (iii) declaring the
Dr. VRKS, J
proceedings No.V-11011/ES/I.C/Rev.37/2005/476 dated
04.02.2006 of the Revisional Authority is illegal and
arbitrary, consequently set aside the same pass such other
order or orders in the interest of justice."
2. Respondents filed a counter affidavit and additional
material papers.
3. Sri V.PadmanabhaRao, the learned counsel for writ
petitioner and Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel
for Central Government submitted their earnest arguments and
cited legal authorities.
4. Writ petitioner has been in service since 24.06.1989 as
Constable in Central Industrial Security Force. On 14.01.2000
between 1:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. he was deployed to discharge
his duties at gate No.4 of CISF Unit, PPT, Paradeep and he was
obliged to cause checking of outgoing men, material and
vehicles. It has to be noticed that the office of the Commandant,
Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs) had
issued an Order No.CISF/PPT/INT/53/95-33 dated 05.01.1996
stating that a Constable may carry Rs.10/- while on duty during a
shift to meet pocket expenses towards refreshment etc. In no
case any CISF personnel is allowed to keep more than the above
amount during duty hours at various posts. On 14.01.2000 at
1:00 P.M. this writ petitioner, as was required, made an entry in
the general diary disclosing that he was to discharge the duty at
gate No.4 and was possessed of Rs.10/- currency note bearing
No.56339. On the day at 7:05 hours a surprise check was
Dr. VRKS, J
conducted by his Inspector, in the presence of other officers, and
during the check the writ petitioner was found in possession of
Rs.24/-. The checking party verified his duty post and searched it
and found Rs.362/-wrapped in a polythene packet hidden under a
brick. The preliminary enquiry disclosed adequate material.
Therefore, the department initiated regular departmental enquiry.
With reference to Rs.24/- found in his physical possession charge
No.1 and with reference to Rs.362/- found at his duty post charge
No.2 were framed and articlesof charge was served on him and
he submitted his explanations. After considering the same and
having not been satisfied with his explanations, enquiry was
ordered to proceed and it proceeded accordingly.
5. On behalf of the Department, four witnesses were
examined and several documents were exhibited. In defence,
four witnesses were examined and certain documents were
exhibited.
6. After considering the entire material on record, the enquiry
officer found him guilty for charge No.1 (Rs.24/- found in physical
possession of the charged officer). He was found not guilty for
charge No.2. The enquiry report was submitted to disciplinary
authority. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the writ
petitioner and it granted an opportunity to him to submit his final
representation and he accordingly submitted his representation
against the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority considered
the material, considered the report of the enquiry officer,
considered the final representation presented by the writ
petitioner and expressed its satisfaction and correctness of the
Dr. VRKS, J
findings arrived at in the enquiry and accordingly it awarded
punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two
years holding that he would not earn increments of pay during the
period of reduction and that on expiry of that period the reduction
will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
The writ petitioner submitted an appeal against it before the
appellate authority at Patna and the same was dismissed by its
order dated 20.09.2004. Aggrieved by it, the writ petitioner
preferred a revision before the Inspector General, CISF. The
revisional authority examined the entire case and its detailed
order narrated the procedural compliances in conducting the
enquiry and in granting all the opportunities to the charged officer
and finally it found no error with the reports and orders passed by
the lower authorities and accordingly it dismissed the revision
petition. Aggrieved by that, the present writ petition is filed.
7. The forceful submissions of Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, the
learned counsel for writ petitioner are that:
• The writ petitioner was not granted the opportunity to
engage a defence counsel and therefore procedure was
violated.
• That the findings arrived at are perverse.
• The punishment inflicted was disproportionate.
• The proved allegation is not misconduct and it is only
violation of an office order.
• In such cases, according to the learned counsel this Court
has to interfere and apply the principles laid down in
Dr. VRKS, J
B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India1 and S.R.Tewari v.
Union of India2.
Learned counsel submits that the alleged act of holding a few
rupees of money is trifle in nature and it does not warrant such
harsh punishment and this Court must meet out justice to the writ
petitioner.
8. As against this, the learned Standing Counsel for Central
Government Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar submits that:
• Central Industrial Security Force is a uniformed, honoured
and disciplined service. Strictness and discipline shall
always be maintained. That the writ petitioner had pleaded
facts falsely and incorrectly as against the facts borne out
by record and on that ground itself the writ is liable to be
dismissed.
• The entire cause of action had arisen at Orissa and no part
of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. Simply because the writ petitioner
was posted and serving at Visakhapatnam by the time he
had filed this writ petition, it would not lend jurisdiction to
this Court.
• The contentions that are raised by the writ petitioner are
raised for the first time before this Court and they were
never raised before any of the lower authorities.
(1995) 6 SCC 749
2013 (4) SCJ 517
Dr. VRKS, J
• That the facts alleged were properly proved and the
punishment awarded was proportionate and it warrants no
interference.
Learned counsel requests this Court to apply the principles
contained in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited3.
Learned counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Having bestowed requisite attention to the submissions
made on both sides and the facts made available before this
Court, the following aspects are to be stated by this Court:
For personnel working in CISF discipline is cardinal.
Anyone who acts without authority can be said to have committed
the acts of misconduct. One has to see that unless either in the
Standing Orders or in the Service Regulations an act or omission
is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the employer to fish
out some conduct as misconduct and punish the workman vide
Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation4. Section 10(a) of the CISF Act, 1968 mandates
that it shall be the duty of every member of the Force promptly to
obey and execute all orders lawfully issued to him by his superior
authority. In fact, by virtue of Section 18(1) of the CISF Act, 1968
if a member of the Force is found guilty of violation of any lawful
orders passed by the superior officer, it is an offence for which
imprisonment for a term is provided.
(2008) 12 SCC 481
(1985) 2 SCC 35
Dr. VRKS, J
10. It has already been seen that the above order dated
05.01.1996 which mandated a Constable not to carry more than
Rs.10/- while on duty. The Inspector General while disposing of
the revision has specifically recorded that this instruction is
embedded in the Unit Standing Orders and cannot be violated.
The present writ petition does not in terms challenge that the
authority which passed the said Standing Order had no power to
issue such orders or that the said order which finally led to a
finding of guilt against the writ petitioner is illegal being against
the statute or the constitution. It is undisputed that the said
Standing Order was passed by the statutory authority. It is
already seen that the writ petitioner being a Constable is bound
by the statute to comply with the orders passed by the statutory
authority. When that being the case, the contention of the
learned counsel for writ petitioner that it is a mere office order and
its violation cannot be called as misconduct is misconceived and
thus has no force. In fact, learned counsel has not shown any
authority to think otherwise. In fact, during the disciplinary
enquiry, during the hearing of appeal and during the hearing of
the revision, this writ petitioner never questioned the legal efficacy
of the above office order which became the Unit Standing Order.
Therefore, raising that question here without any further prayer in
challenge to that cannot be countenanced.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in B.C. Chaturvedi's
case (supra 1) was engaged in laying down the principles in the
context of service law and held that judicial review is not an
appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the
Dr. VRKS, J
decision is made. The power of judicial review is meant to ensure
that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that
the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct
in the eye of the Court. When an enquiry is conducted on
charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court is
concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a
competent officer, whether rules of natural justice were complied
with or not? The Court has only to see whether the findings or
conclusions are based on some evidence or not. Neither the
technical rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence
as defined therein, oblige to disciplinary proceedings. Adequacy
of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be
canvassed before the Court. When the authority accepts the
evidence and the conclusion receives support therefrom, the
disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer
is guilty of the charge. Disciplinary authority is the sole judge of
facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of
punishment. The Court in its power of judicial review does not act
as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive
at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court may
interfere where the authority held the proceedings in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of
statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is
based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court may
Dr. VRKS, J
interfere with the conclusion or the finding and mould the relief so
as to make it appropriate to the facts of the case.
12. The authorities are invested with the discretion to impose
an appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or
gravity of the misconduct. The High Court, while exercising the
power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own
conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority shocks the conscience of the High Court, it would be
appropriate for it either to direct the disciplinary authority to
reconsider the penalty imposed or in appropriate cases with a
view to shorten the litigation, it may impose appropriate
punishment with cogent reasons in support of it. A Writ Court's
interference is permissible only when the punishment is
shockingly disproportionate and not otherwise. In S.R.Tewari's
case (supra 2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that
Court must act with great caution and exercise power of judicial
review only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the
making out of a legal point. If the impugned order suffers from
mala fide, dishonest or corrupt practice or the order was passed
by the authority beyond the limits conferred upon it by the law, the
Court can interfere. While laying down those principles, their
Lordships also held that the Court is devoid of power to
reappreciate evidence and reach to its own conclusions. The
scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the
decision and not against the decision itself. If there is some
evidence on record, which is acceptable and which can be relied
Dr. VRKS, J
upon, the conclusion would not be treated as perverse and the
findings would not be interfered with.
13. In the light of this ruling cited at the bar by the learned
counsel for petitioner, now, submissions raised on behalf of the
writ petitioner are to be considered. One of the contentions
raised is that this writ petitioner was not allowed to engage a
defence counsel and thus, rules of procedure were violated. Rule
34(5) of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 provides
that where the member of the Force is to answer the charges he
may be permitted by the inquiry authority to have the assistance
of any other member of the Force approved by it. Thus, it is this
rule that is alleged to have been violated. The very stout
opposition and protest against this contention is that the alleged
contention is against the facts on record. Learned Standing
Counsel for Central Government placed on record letter dated
19.06.2000 presented by this writ petitioner before the enquiry
officer which is in the following terms:
"I have stated duringrecording a plea on
14.06.2000 that I will arrange an assistance to plead my
case. But nobody is willing to plead the case in my
favour.
Therefore, I would request you that the enquiry
may be started and I myself plead the case without any
assistance."
14. Learned counsel for writ petitioner could not overcome this
truth. Thus, it is crystal clear that the writ petitioner has pleaded
Dr. VRKS, J
before this Court a fact which is known to him to be false.
According to learned Standing Counsel for respondents, this
attitude and conduct of the writ petitioner is abuse of process of
Court and in such case the Court is to necessarily dismiss the writ
petition at the threshold without even endeavouring to consider
the merits of the case. He seeks support for this principle on a
ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.D.Sharma v.
Steel Authority of India Limited5. Learned counsel for writ
petitioner would not show anything contrary to this. Going by the
principle laid down in the above ruling, irrespective of other
contentions of the petitioner this writ petition must be dismissed
on the ground that the writ petitioner has been abusing the
process of Court by pleading facts which are known to be false to
him. It is also to be recorded that there was no violation of any
rule as the inquiry authority afforded opportunity to the writ
petitioner to engage defence assistance.
15. Despite the above observations of this Court, the other
contentions have also been considered. It is contended for writ
petitioner that the findings arrived at by the lower authorities are
perverse. This Court finds no merit in this contention. On
scrutinizing the material on record, it is seen very clearly that this
writ petitioner declared for himself and an entry was made in the
general diary that he was possessed of Rs.10/- currency note
with a particular serial number. It is also very clear that when the
surprise check was conducted, that particular Rs.10/- currency
note with that particular serial number was not available with him.
(2008) 12 SCC 481
Dr. VRKS, J
That merely means that he spent cash he had declared and
brought. On his physical verification he was found in possession
of Rs.24/-. The preliminary enquiry officer reported that the writ
petitioner was unable to give any explanation whatsoever as to
how he had come to possess Rs.24/-. In fact, it is that failure that
led to the initiation of regular departmental enquiry. It was only at
the departmental enquiry stage the writ petitioner had come out
with a defence. He stated that he made a telephone call in the
morning and paid the money and the telephone operator had no
exchange to give him the balance amount and therefore, the
telephone operator brought and gave him this 24/- towards
balance amount due to him. Lower authorities have considered
this defence and rejected it. They stated that it was a cooked-up
story. They further stated that even if the version was true, the
discipline required the writ petitioner to have made a declaration
before appropriate authority about this excess money and got the
newly received money entered in the general diary. However, he
failed in doing it and that failure was without any explanation on
his part. Sworn evidence of department witnesses clearly
established that this writ petitioner was in possession of that
unaccounted money. Be it noted that the revisional authority had
specifically recorded that it was not concerned whether this
money was illegal money or not and held that holding excess
money was in violation of Standing Orders and therefore it was
against discipline. The material makes it very clear that the lower
authorities had collected necessary evidence and had properly
considered the material and had reached proper conclusions.
When that being the case, the contention that they shall be held
Dr. VRKS, J
as perverse because they failed to consider the theory
propounded by this writ petitioner before the inquiry authority in
appropriate manner hasno merit. Even if it has some merit, it was
discarded by the lower authorities and it is not for the Writ Court
to reappreciate it. One must state that all the lower authorities
allowed this writ petitioner to raise his defence and they
appropriately considered the version raised by the defence and
they recorded full reasons as to why they could not accept the
defence version. Therefore, the orders impugned are fully in
accordance with law and can never to be stated to be perverse.
Therefore, this contention is negatived.
16. Considering the nature of the employment of the writ
petitioner and the character and quality of the organization in
which he was placed, the punishment inflicted must be stated to
be proportionate. It cannot be said that the monetary penalty with
reference to increments in the given facts of the case can be said
to be shocking to the conscience of the Court. At any rate, this
Court is not at all convinced to say that it is disproportionate.
Therefore, this contention is negatived.
17. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents contended that
this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ
petition as no part of the cause of action arose within the
territorial limits of this Court and cited Oil & Natural Gas
Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu6. Their Lordships held:
(1994) 4 SCC 711
Dr. VRKS, J
"5. Clause (1) of Article 226 begins with a non obstante
clause- notwithstanding anything in Article 32 - and provides
that every High Court shall have power "throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction", to
issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate
cases, any Government, "within those territories" directions,
orders or writs, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. Under clause
(2) of Article 226 the High Court may exercise its power
conferred by clause (1) if the cause of action, wholly or in
part, had arisen within the territory over which it exercises
Jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is
not within those territories. On a plain reading of the
aforesaid two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution it
becomes clear that a High Court can exercise the power to
issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any
of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action,
wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation
to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the
seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the
person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is
not within the said territories.
6. It is well settled that the expression "cause of action"
means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove,
if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the
Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh' Lord Watson said:
"... the cause of action has no relation whatever to the
defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it
depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the
plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint
as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon
which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in
his favour."
Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial
jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in
support of the cause of action into consideration albeit
without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or
otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question
whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a
writ petition must be answered on the basis of the
Dr. VRKS, J
averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise
whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question
of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts
pleaded in the petition."
18. In the case at hand, the misconduct was alleged and was
enquired into and was concluded and punishment was inflicted
not within the territorial jurisdictions of this Court. The appellate
authority and the revisional authority disposed of the matters in a
State which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
Thus, no relevant fact concerning cause of action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Present posting of
the writ petitioner at Visakhapatnam which is within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court does not invest power with the writ
petitioner to canvass his cause before this Court. This Court finds
no territorial jurisdiction to consider his case. Viewed from any
angle there are no merits in this writ petition.
19. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 19.06.2024
Ivd
Dr. VRKS, J
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
WRIT PETITION No.23965 of 2006
Date: 19.06.2024
Ivd
