Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Singh vs The Central Industrial Security Force on 28 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:12554-DB
2019:JHHC:39983-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 633 of 2017
Deepak Singh, S/O- Late Bhangi singh, R/O- Central Industrial
Security Force, Unit B.C.C.L. Dhanbad, P.O & P.S- Dhanbad, District
- Dhanbad
... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The Central Industrial Security Force, through the Inspector
General, CISF, Ministry of Home Affairs, Eastern Region, H.Q.
Patna (Bihar).
2. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force,
B.C.C.L Unit, P.O- Koylanagar, P.S- Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad
(Jharkhand).
3. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, B.C.C.L. Unit,
P.O- Koylanagar, P.S- Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
4. The Deputy Commandant, C.I.S.F, B.C.C.L. Unit P.O- Koylanagar,
P.S- Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Mahabir Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. S.G.I.
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, C.G.C.
---------
12/Dated: 28.04.2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging
the judgment dt. 06.07.2017 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S)
No. 7395 of 2011.
2. The appellant was employed in the CISF and he was allotted
Arms Guard duty on 24.06.2010 from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. of
25.06.2010 at post Morcha No.1 at Basantimata Camp of CISF where
arms and ammunitions were stored. It is alleged that the Company
Commander made a surprise check at 4:40 a.m. on 25.06.2010 and
found the appellant sleeping on duty with his weapon. Also when
2025:JHHC:12554-DB
2019:JHHC:39983-DB
woken up, he misbehaved with the Company Commander and
pointed a rifle at the Commander.
3. He was issued a charge-sheet for the said misconduct on
23.07.2010, for which he submitted a reply on 31.07.2010.
4. The charge-sheet was initially withdrawn on 04.08.2010, but
another charge-sheet dt. 04.08.2010 was issued to him with the same
charges contained in the charge-sheet dt. 23.07.2010. The appellant
again replied thereto. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was
conducted in which the appellant participated and also cross-
examined the witnesses.
5. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the
appellant were found proved and submitted a report to the Disciplinary
Authority.
6. The copy of the enquiry report was supplied by the Disciplinary
Authority to the petitioner on 19.10.2010 and he was given an
opportunity to submit representation, if any, against it.
7. Petitioner gave a written representation against the enquiry
report on 02.11.2010.
8. After going through the same, the Disciplinary Authority in
exercise of power conferred under Rule 32(1) read in conjunction with
Schedule-I and Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 2001, imposed penalty of
removal from service on 23.11.2010.
9. Appellant challenged the same by filing an appeal before the
Appellate Authority, but the appeal was also dismissed on
25.03.2011.
10. Even the revision filed by the appellant before the Revisional
Authority was dismissed on 31.05.2011.
2025:JHHC:12554-DB
2019:JHHC:39983-DB
11. Thereafter, the appellant filed W.P. (S) No. 7395 of 2011 before
this Court.
12. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant contended that
the orders passed by the respondents were illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to law. He also contended that the charges have not been
established in the departmental enquiry. He also contended that the
punishment is disproportionate and the matter should be remanded
back to the authorities for consideration on the point of quantum of
punishment.
13. The respondents opposed the said contentions before the
learned Single Judge.
14. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant was a member
of a Disciplined Force and dereliction of duty cannot be accepted from
a member of a Disciplined Force. He also disagreed with the
contention of the appellant that the punishment is disproportionate.
15. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed.
16. The counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the
appellant at the given point of time had no weapon with him and that
he had already surrendered the same and relied on Annexure-1.
17. The said document shows that the surrender of the weapon
was at 5:10 a.m. on 25.06.2010. Therefore, at 4:40 a.m., obviously,
the weapon is in his own possession.
18. In any event, in the Letters Patent Appeal jurisdiction arising out
of orders passed in writ jurisdiction, it is not open to the appellate
court to re-appreciate evidence which has already been appreciated
by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the
2025:JHHC:12554-DB
2019:JHHC:39983-DB
Revisional Authority, apart from the Writ Court, and come to a
contrary conclusion on facts.
19. Once the serious charges levelled against the appellant have
been found to be established, and the appellant is a member of a
Disciplined Force, any sympathy shown by the Court on aspect of
punishment would be highly improper. Therefore, the plea of the
appellant to at least modify and reduce the punishment imposed on
the appellant cannot be entertained and it is, accordingly, rejected.
20. We find no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and it is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
21. All pending applications shall stand disposed off.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2
