Bombay High Court
Mr. Balu Baburao Dhikle vs Group Commandant (Cisf) And Ors on 1 August, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2024:BHC-AS:31275-DB
1/4 37 RPW-ST-97817-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.97817 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.782 OF 2014
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.97824 OF 2020
IN
REVIEW PETITION (ST)NO.97817 OF 2020
Mr. Balu Baburao Dhikle .. Petitioner
Versus
Group Commandant (CISF) And Ors .. Respondents
...
Adv. Rameshwar Gite a/w Rohit Gorade, Sushant Tare for the
petitioner.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 1st AUGUST, 2024
P.C:-
1 The present petition is filed seeking review of the order
dated 8/11/2017, passed in Writ Petition No. 782 of 2014, assailing
the order dated 24/04/2013, passed by the Inspector General, Central
Industrial Security Force (CISF), in appeal as well as the original
order dated 19/11/2012, passed by the Deputy Inspector General,
CISF, Chennai, in addition to the order dated 12/10/2012.
The Writ Petition was dismissed recording that in
exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court does not function as an
appellate authority or sit in judgment over factual findings unless
they are found to be perverse or vitiated.
Ashish
2/4 37 RPW-ST-97817-2020.doc
2 Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner
preferred a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed on
25/01/2019, by recording that there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the High Court.
Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred
Revision Petition R.P. (C) No.1971 of 2019 and even this was
dismissed by recording as below:-
"This review petition has been filed against Order dated
th
25 January, 2019 whereby the Special Leave Petition was
dismissed.
We have considered the review petition on merits. In our
opinion, no case for review of Order dated 25th January, 2019 is
made out. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed on
merits."
3 After this round of litigation before the Apex Court, the
petitioner once again approached this Court by filing the present
review petition and the learned counsel would place reliance upon the
decision of the Apex Court in case of Khoday Distilleries Limited
and ors vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited
Kollegal (under Liquidation) (2019) 4 SCC 376, pronouncing upon
the power of the Court under Section 136, and 141 of Code of Civil
Procedure, as regards the maintainability of review petition.
We have perused the principle of law laid down in this
decision, which follows the conclusions drawn by the Three Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Kunhayammed vs. State of
Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359, to the effect that an order refusing Special
Leave to Appeal may be an non-speaking order and it will not attract
doctrine of merger and such an order refusing special leave to appeal
does not stand substituted in the place of an order under challenge,
Ashish
3/4 37 RPW-ST-97817-2020.doc
but all that it means is that the court was not inclined in exercise of its
discretion to allow the appeal being filed.
4 In the case before us, we have noted that it is not a case
that the Special Leave to Appeal has been refused but by order dated
25/01/2019, the Special Leave Petition itself is dismissed and not
only this, when a Review Petition is filed on merits, the Apex Court,
once again, recorded that no case for review of order dated
25/01/2019 is made out, by specifically recording that the Review
Petition is dismissed on merits.
5 In any case, since the Review Petition is filed, we have
examined it even on merits and find no error in the order dated
8/11/2017, making it imperative for us to review the same.
The petitioner before us was subjected to disciplinary
proceedings in his capacity as Head Constable when he was charged
for misconduct in respect of an incident dated 9/08/2012, when he
assaulted Gundappa another Head Constable with lathi resulting into
an injury.
The incident was alleged to have been taken place in the
Barrack of CISF Unit, which definitely is a disciplinary force.
While challenging the impugned orders, the counsel for
the petitioner only pressed before us and that contention we have
specifically recorded in para 7, is the disproportionate punishment
imposed upon him and what was canvassed was he did not receive
fair and reasonable treatment.
We considered his argument and by referring to the past
conduct of the petitioner i.e. he being awarded seven minor and three
Ashish
4/4 37 RPW-ST-97817-2020.doc
major penalties for various misconducts allegedly committed by him
during his tenure, arrived at a conclusion that the punishment
imposed upon him in no way can be said to be disproportionate and
infact his past service record justify that no leniency shall be shown
to him as no mitigating circumstances were brought to our notice.
Recording that the incident being undisputed and on
perusal of his previous record, the authority has rightly decided to
compulsorily retire him but also protected some of the benefits, we
had refused to entertain the Petition and since no error apparent on
the face of it is pointed out to us, the present Review Petition being
without merit and substance is also dismissed.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Ashish
