Gujarat High Court
P. Janardhana Rao vs Commandant on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/3133/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 04/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3133 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
P. JANARDHANA RAO
Versus
COMMANDANT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 04/04/2022
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner working under the Central Industrial Security Force,
by way of this petition, challenges the order dated 30.04.2016 by which
the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the basis of a
departmental proceeding. That order of dismissal has been confirmed in
appeal by an appellate order dated 30.06.2016. The petitioner's revision
petition also came to be dismissed by an order dated 24.11.2016. These
orders are under challenge.
2. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner joined the CISF on
C/SCA/3133/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 04/04/2022
07.04.1989 as a Constable - General Duty. In September 2010, the
petitioner was promoted as Head Constable. While being posted at CISF
unit in GC Ankleshwar for a misconduct, the petitioner was issued a
charge-sheet in 2016. The petitioner submitted a reply on 2016. A
departmental inquiry was held. The charges levelled against the
petitioner were held to be proved. The inquiry officer submitted a report
on 12.04.2016. Based on the record and after inviting a representation
from the petitioner against the inquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed
from service.
3. Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit
that the ground on which the penalty is challenged is on the ground of
proper. The incident of stabbing Shri Rai was due to a deliberate
provocation by Shri Rai by abusing the petitioner. The injury to Shri Rai
on the chest was not a serious injury. Even the petitioner was injured.
Even Shri Rai was under suspension and dismissed for assault cases. Mr.
Clerk would further submit that it is wrong for the department to allege
that the petitioner was in a drunken condition. In the prohibition case, the
petitioner had been acquitted. Looking to the service record of the
petitioner, Mr. Clerk would submit that the petitioner had put in 27 years
of service and except the incident in question the record was clean
inasmuch as he had received 21 good entries and cash award. The
petitioner has a wife and two children dependent on him and in the
aforesaid premises through written submissions the case of the petitioner
as submitted by Mr. Clerk deserves a lesser punishment so that the
petitioner can get terminal benefits.
4. Mr. Harsheel Shukla, leanred counsel appearing for the
respondents invited the court's attention to the proceedings recorded in
C/SCA/3133/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 04/04/2022
the departmental inquiry, to the seriousness of the charges imputed
against the petitioner which were held to be proved and to the affidavit-
in-reply filed by the respondents. He would submit that while the
petitioner was working as a Head Constable at Ankleshwar, he stabbed
one Mr. Samar Rai inside the barrack,. He was found under drunken
condition. He when taken to the hospital for a minor injury and for
conducting a test to ascertain his alcohol consumption, the petitioner
created a ruckus and nuisance at the hospital.
5. Mr. Shukla would submit that the charge was serious enough to
warrant dismissal. Departmental proceedings were held in accordance
with the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice. Findings
have been recorded by the inquiry officer based on witness accounts to
indicate that the charges were proved. The court therefore should not
interfere much less even on the aspect of quantum of penalty particularly
when while recording the order of dismissal the dismissing authority had
observed that the petitioner had been charged previously for two major
and four minor punishments and had not reformed himself. Reliance was
placed by Mr. Shukla of this court in the case of Ramsingh Yadav vs.
Union of India [(2014) JX (Guj) 709].
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the
respective parties, what is evident on perusal of the inquiry report in
respect of the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on
08.02.2016. Reading the charge-sheet indicates that the petitioner
stabbed his junior force member one Samar Rai during their stay in
barrack no. 04 of the CISF Unit Line, Ankleshwar. As a result of the
stabbing incident, where even the petitioner sustained minor injuries on
his index finger when the petitioner was taken to hospital, there also the
C/SCA/3133/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 04/04/2022
petitioner threatened Shri Samar Rai as a result of which an FIR was
registered against the petitioner. The second charge levelled against the
petitioner was that he was found in a drunken condition as he had
consumed alcohol. Perusal of the third charge would indicate that though
the petitioner was already awarded two major and four minor
punishments out of which three were related to assault in drunken
condition, the petitioner did not show improvements in his habits and was
again involved in such indisciplined act.
7. Perusal of the inquiry officer's report would indicate that the
disciplinary authority examined 13 witnesses and several documents
including the final orders of punishments awarded to the petitioner in the
past which were placed at Exs. 1 to 6 in the departmental proceedings.
The statements of the witnesses which have been considered by the
inquiry officer in detail indicate that while the petitioner and Shri Samar
Rai were in barrack no. 4, the petitioner who was sitting on his bed was
found to come over to Shri Samar Rai's bed and started heated arguments
because of some comment made by one of his colleagues. He stabbed
Shri Rai on the chest with a folding knife. This not only resulted in
injury to the petitioner in his index finger but injured Shri Rai on his
chest which led to he being hospitalized. The inquiry officer has
considered the past record based on the evidence adduced by Prosecution
Witness Shri Lokendra Mudgal. It will be relevant to reproduce the past
record which came before the inquiry officer. The extract reads as under:
SL. TYPE OF DETAILS OF FINAL ORDER Exhibits
NO PUNISHMENT INDISCIPLINE AND DATE
ACTIVITY
01 Minor Punishment - On Dated- CISF Unit HEC Exhibit-
CISF Act - 1969 Under 14.11.1990 while Ranchi vide Final 01
Rule-35 on duty he kept Order No-1537 Dt-
C/SCA/3133/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 04/04/2022
"Trolley" on 26.12.1990 awarded
Railway Track, the Punishment of
due to which "CENSURE"
Railway wagon
got damaged.
02 Minor Punishment - On Dated- CISF Unit HEC Exhibit-
CISF Act - 1969 Under 11.12.1990- Ranchi vide Final 02
Rule-35 Absence from Order No-142 Dt-
duty 26.02.1991 awarded
the Punishment of
"Pay fine equal to 01
day salary"
03 Major Punishment - On Dated- CISF Unit ONGC Exhibit-
CISF Act - 1969 Under 04.10.1994- Nazira vide Final 03
Rule-35 Assault on Order No-2460 Dt-
CT/GD Gajendra 11.04.1995- Awarded
Singh in the Punishment of
Company Line "Reduction of pay by
and Charged one stage from Rs
Official was in 960/- to Rs.940/- in
drunken condition the time scale of pay
for the period of One
year without
cumulative effect"
04 Minor Punishment - Misbehaved, CISF Unit ONGC Exhibit-
CISF Act - 1969 Under abused and Nazira vide Final 04
Rule-35 beaten L/Naik Order No-2401 Dt-
Chandi Lal in the 26.08.1995- Awarded
Unit Mess the Punishment of
"CENSURE"
05 Major Punishment - Scuffle/Quarrel CISF Unit RFCL Exhibit-
CISF Act - 1969 Under with CT/GD Mumbai vide Final 05
Rule-35 Jitender Kumar in Order No-7127 Dt-
the barrack under 26.11.2014-Awarded
influence of the Punishment of
liquour "Reduction of pay by
03 increment for the
period of 03 years
with cumulative
effect"
06 Minor Punishment - On Dated: CISF Unit RFCL Exhibit-
CISF Act - 1969 Under 15.11.2015 - Mumbai vide Final 06
Rule-35 Absence from Order No-7372 Dt-
Unit Line 09.12.2014 Awarded
the punishment of
"Pay fine equal to 02
days salary"
C/SCA/3133/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 04/04/2022
8. During the preliminary, hearing though the petitioner pleaded as
not guilty, the undisputed facts which were recorded by the inquiry
officer indicated that the petitioner was present in the barrack and had
carried out the incident in question. Based on the analysis and evaluation
of the incident, the inquiry officer found that the charge against the
petitioner was held to be proved. The conclusion of the inquiry officer
when read indicates that Shri Samar Rai had sustained injuries. An FIR
was registered against the petitioner and it was also found that in the past
the petitioner had been awarded two major and four minor punishments.
The charges were held to be proved.
9. Perusal of the disciplinary authority's order imposing penalty of
dismissal would also indicate that considering the inquiry officer's report,
the disciplinary authority found as under.
"13. From the above statement and documentary evidence
produced by PW-13, it is clearly evident that HC/GD P.
Janardana Rao, Charged Official was awarded with 2 Major
and 4 Minor punishments by the different disciplinary
authorities. Out of which in three cases the charged official
was punished due to scuffle/assault in drunken condition.
Being the member of the disciplined force, scuffle/assault in
drunken conditions is the gross misconduct, however, the
disciplinary authorities took lenient view against the charged
official with the hope that he will improve his conduct. But
the Charged Official failed to reform/improve his conduct
and committed again and again the same act of gross
misconduct and grave act of indiscipline. In spite of giving
various opportunities to the Charged Official, but he did not
improve his conduct which established that the Charged
Official is a habitual offender and do not bother about the
discipline of the force which adversely affects on the
discipline of other force personnel as well as the image of
the force."
C/SCA/3133/2020 CAV ORDER DATED: 04/04/2022
10. The order of dismissal was confirmed in appeal and in revision.
Even the appellate authority found that looking to the misconduct of the
petitioner since CISF is an armed police force entrusted with the task of
guarding vital and sensitive installations. Members of the CISF are
expected to display exemplary disciplined behaviour. The authority
observed that the petitioner had displayed and undisciplined behaviour
which made him unsuitable to be a member of the force.
11. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsels for
the parties especially and solely on the ground of the proportionality of
the punishment looking to the past conduct of the petitioner which the
inquiry officer had considered and reproduced hereinabove, the discretion
cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Well settled it is that once
the inquiry officer holds the charges to be proved on the test of
preponderence of probabilities and there is no breach of violation of
natural justice and even in the present case the petitioner has not argued
this breach and the submission was only limited to the question of
proportionality of penalty, looking to the past conduct which the
disciplinary authority and the inquiry officer has considered, I see no
reason to interfere with the impugned order.
12. For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed. No costs.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
DIVYA
