Jharkhand High Court
Ram Avtar Tiwari vs Union Of India Through Director ... on 12 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2388 of 2009
Ram Avtar Tiwari, S/o Sri Ram Janam Tiwari, R/o Village -
Abhaday, P.O. - Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, District - Bhabhua,
Kaimur presently residing at C.I.S.F. Unit, CCL, Kargali, Khasmahal,
"E" Company, P.O. - Bermo, District- Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through Director General, Central Industrial
Security Force (CISF) CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi
2. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Forces (herein
after mentioning CISF) Eastern Region, Patna
3. The Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, unit CCL, Bokaro
4. The Commandant, CISF Unit CCL Kargali, P.O. P.S. Bermo
District Bokaro
5. The Asstt. Commandant, CISF Unit CCL Kargali, Khasmahal,
P.O. - Bermo, District - Bokaro
6. Sri A.P. Mishra, the Enquiry Officer, Father's name not known,
CISF Unit, CCL., Kargali, Khasmahal, P.O. & P.S. Bermo, District
- Bokaro ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 2324 of 2009
Mukesh Chandra Sharma @ Mukesh Chand Sharma, S/o Sri Mohan
Singh, R/o Village - Enchera, P.O. - Badirca, P.S. Nadwai, District -
Bharatpur (Rajasthan) presently residing at CISF Unit, CCL, Kargali,
Khasmahal, "E" Company, P.O. - Bermo, District - Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Forces (herein
after mentioning CISF) Eastern Region, Patna
3. The Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, CCL, Bokaro
4. The Commandant, CISF Unit CCL Kargali, P.O. P.S. Bermo
District Bokaro
5. The Asstt. Commandant, CISF Unit CCL Kargali, Khasmahal,
P.O. - Bermo, District - Bokaro
6. Sri A.P. Mishra, the Enquiry Officer, Father's name not known,
CISF Unit, CCL., Kargali, Khasmahal, P.O. & P.S. Bermo,
District - Bokaro ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. H.K. Mahato, Advocate
Mrs. Ahalya Mahto, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate
Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate
---
13/12.12.2022 Heard H.K. Mahato, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners along with Mrs. Ahalya Mahto, Advocate.
2. Heard Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents along with Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate.
3. Writ petition No. 2388 of 2009 has been filed for the following
reliefs:
"(a) To set aside the order dated 12.02.08 passed by the Commandant,
CISF Unit, CCL, Kargali, and the subsequent order(s) dt. 27.7.08 and 16/19
January, 2009 passed by the D.I.G., CISF Unit CCL, Kargali and the I.G., CISF,
Eastern Region, Patna respectively by which the order of commandant is not
interfered and appeals again order dt. 5.3.08 are dismissed.
(b) For any other relief(s) so that order aforesaid be set aside and
conscionable justice be done to the petitioner without any stricture in his service
as would be deemed fit and proper by this court, in the facts and circumstances of
this case."
4. Writ Petition No.2324 of 2009 has been filed for the following
reliefs:
"(a) To set aside the order dated 05.03.08 passed by the Commandant,
CISF Unit, CCL, Kargali, and the subsequent order(s) dt. 27.7.08 and 15.01.09
passed by the D.I.G., CISF Unit CCL, Kargali and the I.G., CISF, Eastern
Region, Patna respectively by which the order of commandant is not interfered
and appeals again order dt. 5.3.08 are dismissed.
(b) For any other relief(s) so that order aforesaid be set aside and
conscionable justice be done to the petitioner without any stricture in his service
as would be deemed fit and proper by this court, in the facts and circumstances of
this case."
Arguments of the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that the
petitioners were subjected to two different disciplinary proceedings
arising out of the same incident and, therefore, these two cases have
been tagged together. The learned counsel further submits that both
these petitioners were posted for security of KMP store and at that
point of time, there was an attack of 400-500 extremists in the nearby
camp which was only 200 yards away from the place of attack. The
aggression of the extremist continued for about three and a half hours
and during the incident, two CISF personnel were killed and four
SLRs were looted. He submits that the allegations against the
petitioners are that in spite of the fact that the petitioners were having
200 rounds of live cartridges, but Ram Avtar Tiwari fired only 20
rounds and Mukesh Chandra Sharma fired only 19 rounds. He submits
that the petitioners had acted as per the situation and merely because
they had fired only 19/20 rounds, they have been punished in the
departmental proceedings for not firing appropriately appropriate
during the attack. The learned counsel submits that the defence
witnesses have stated that the extremist ultimately ran away because
of the fact that the petitioners were firing from KMP store. He also
submits that the petitioners had tried to come forward and fire, but
there was counter-firing and therefore, they could not proceed any
further.
6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the support force
which came on the spot much later was responsible for the harm
caused and the petitioners have merely been made scapegoats in the
entire incident. The learned counsel submits that the enquiry officer as
well as all the three authorities have not considered these aspects of
the matter and accordingly, all the three impugned orders passed by
the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional
authority are perverse and are fit to be set aside.
Arguments of the Respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
submitted that all the three authorities have passed reasoned order
considering each and every argument of the petitioners. She also
submits that at the stage of enquiry, the petitioners duly participated
and witnesses were examined. The petitioners had also led defence
evidences. The enquiry officer recorded findings against the
petitioners after considering entire materials placed before the enquiry
officer. She submits that no procedural flaw has been pointed out by
the petitioners. She also submits that there is no perversity in the
impugned action and order.
8. The learned counsel submits that the scope of interference in
the matter of disciplinary proceeding is very limited as has been held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time. In absence of any
perversity or procedural irregularity, there is no scope for interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when all the three
authorities have given consistent finding with regard to the guilt of the
petitioners.
9. Arguments concluded.
10. Post this case for judgment on 20.02.2023.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
