Balwan Singh vs The Union Of India Through Ministry Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7271 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Balwan Singh vs The Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 1 December, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                         2025:JHHC:35805




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(S) No.5079 of 2015
                                    -------

Balwan Singh, son of Sri Ajit Singh, resident of village Sasroli, P.O., P.S. Sasroli, District Jhajjar (Haryana), Presently posted as Constable, Central Industrial Security Force, C.T.P.S., Chandrapura P.O., P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro ... Petitioner Versus

1. The Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Director General of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, Boring Road, Patna, P.O., P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna (Bihar).

4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Zone, Headquarter, P.O., P.S. Patliputra, District Patna (Bihar).

5. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Chandrapura, Force, P.O., C.T.P.S. P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro. .........Respondents

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

-------

For the Petitioner : Ms. Nirupama, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC.

: Mr. Bajranj Kumar, AC to ASGI

-------

CAV ON:06.11.2025 Pronounced On:-01/12/2025

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred

by the petitioner for quashing the order contained in

Memo No. V- 11014 / Pukh / Vivin / Revision-10/2014-

12556 dated 14.11.2014, passed by Director General of

Police, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern

Division, Headquarter, Boring Road, Patna; whereby the

2025:JHHC:35805

revision petition dated 23.07.2014, preferred by the

petitioner has been dismissed affirming the Appellate

order dated 13/09/2013, contained in Memo No. V-

11014/E2/Ad II/Ap1-15/BS/2013-619, passed by

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Industrial

Security Force, Patliputra Headquarter, Patna; whereby

the appellate authority has modified the order dated

14/05/2013, passed by Commandant, Central

Industrial Security Force, C.T.P.S. Chandrapura, Bokaro

in the following manner "Reduction of pay to the

minimum stage in the pay band of Const/GD for a period

of three years with immediate effect with cumulative

effect to that of Reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.

7,830/- GP Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 7,540/- + GP Rs. 2,000/-

(in the pay band of PB-I Rs. 5,200-20,200/-+ GP Rs.

2,000/-) for a period of three years. It is further directed

that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of

reduction and on expiry of the period of reduction, it will

have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay."

Initially in a departmental proceeding the petitioner who

is a constable in Central Industrial Security Force,

CTPS, Chandrapura, Bokaro was imposed major penalty

vide order dated 14/05/2013, contained in Memo No. V-

15014/CTPS/Anu/Major-4/13- 1632, passed by

Commandant, Central Industrial C.T.P.S., Security

2025:JHHC:35805

Force, Bokaro, Chandrapura in the following manner

"Reduction of pay to the minimum stage in the pay band

of Const/GD for a period of three years with immediate

effect. It is further directed that he will earn increment of

pay during the period not of reduction and on expiry of

the period of reduction, it will have the effect of

postponing his future increment of pay. The period from

18.02.2013 to 18.03.2013 is treated as suspension only

for all purposes".

II. Further prayed for direction upon the

respondent authorities to pay all the monetary benefits

for which the petitioner is legally entitled for.

3. Briefly stated, as per the pleadings in the writ

application is that on 21.02.2013, a Memo of charge

against the petitioner was served and a show cause was

issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his

reply to the show cause on 27/02/2013 within

stipulated time. Thereafter, Mr. B.N.Murmu was

appointed as enquiry Officer and he submitted his brief

note of Departmental Proceeding on 13/04/2013 and

the petitioner submitted his reply to the brief note on

22/04/2013. Thereafter, Inquiry Report was submitted

by the Enquiry Officer on 27.04.2013 under CISF Rules

2003, Rule 36 and the petitioner submitted his written

defense regarding the enquiry report on 10.05.2013. On

2025:JHHC:35805

14.05.2013, the Commandant, Central Industrial

Security Force, C.T.P.S., Chandrapura Bokaro, passed

the punishment order in following manner "Reduction of

pay to the minimum stage in the pay band of Const/GD

for a period of three years with immediate effect. It is

further directed that he will earn increment of pay during

the period not of reduction and on expiry of the period of

reduction, it will have the effect of postponing his future

increment of pay. The period from 18.02.2013 to

18.03.2013 is treated as suspension only for all

purposes".

Against the said order, the petitioner preferred

an Appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF,

Eastern Zone HQ, Patliputra on 01.7.2013 and the same

was dismissed with modification vide order dated

13.09.2013 contained in Memo No. V-11014/E2/Ad

II/Ap1-15/BS/2013-619, passed by Deputy Inspector

General of Police, Central Industrial Security Force,

Patliputra Headquarter, Patna; whereby the appellate

authority has modified the order dated 14/05/2013,

passed by Commandant, Central Industrial Security

Force, C.T.P.S. Chandrapura, Bokaro in the following

manner "Reduction of pay to the minimum stage in the

pay band of Const/GD for a period of three years with

immediate effect with cumulative effect to that of

2025:JHHC:35805

Reduction of pay by one stage from Rs. 7,830/- GP Rs.

2,000/- to Rs. 7,540/- + GP Rs. 2,000/- (in the pay band

of PB-I Rs. 5,200-20,200/-+ GP Ras 2,000/-) for a period

of three years. It is further directed that he will not earn

increment of pay during the period of reduction and on

expiry of the period of reduction, it will have the effect of

postponing his future increment of pay."

Then the petitioner preferred a Revision before

the Director General of Police CISF, East Zone HQ,

Boaring Road, Patna against the order dated 13.09.2013

and the same was dismissed vide dated 14/11/2014.

Hence, this writ petition.

4. Ms. Nirupama, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner

had submitted that the revisional as well as appellate

authority had passed the impugned order without

scrutinizing the material available on record and they

have failed to take into account the reply to the show

cause submitted by the petitioner and also the

statement of witnesses where it has been categorically

stated that the alleged occurrence occurred in a spur of

moment and why only petitioner has been made a

scapegoat and others were left.

5. Per contra it has been contended by Mr.

Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI that there is no

procedural error and looking to the charge, the

2025:JHHC:35805

petitioner should have been satisfied by modification of

the original order of punishment because he works in a

disciplined force. Further, he relied upon the judgment

passed in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. N.

Gangaraj1, wherein it has been reiterated that the

scope of judicial review is confined only to the decision-

making process.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties

and after going through the documents annexed with

the respective affidavits it appears that the main

grievance of the petitioner is that only he has been made

a scapegoat and others were left.

However, after going through the documents,

the same ground has not been taken either in the reply

to the second show cause or in the memo of appeal.

Even otherwise, the appellate authority, after

considering each and every aspect of the matter, has

reduced the punishment from reduction of three annual

increment to one annual increment.

7. It further appears on perusal of the inquiry

report, that the same has been conducted after giving

full opportunity to the petitioner and after examining all

the witnesses. In other words, there is no procedural

error. The fact further reveals that a punishment order

(2020) 3 SCC 423

2025:JHHC:35805

has been passed after taking into consideration the reply

to the second show cause and the disciplinary authority

has imposed punishment upon the petitioner with

regard to reduction of pay to the minimum stage in the

pay band of const/GD for a period of three years with

immediate effect.

8. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention

that the disciplinary authority has taken each and every

aspect of the matter including the contention of the

petitioner and thereafter imposed the punishment of

reduction of pay scale. Aggrieved petitioner filed an

appeal and the appellate authority, after going through

each and every aspect of the matter, reduced the

punishment from three stage to reduce the punishment

from reduction of pay for a period of three years to

"reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.7830/-+ GP

Rs.2000/- to Rs.7540/- +G.P. Rs.2000/- (in the pay band

of PB-I Rs.5200-20200/- +GP Rs.2000) for a period of 3

years with a further direction that he will not earn

increment of pay during the period of reduction and on

expiry of the period of reduction it will have the effect of

postponing his future increments of pay."

9. After perusing the appellate order, I find that

the same is well-reasoned order. Thereafter, petitioner

has also filed revision against the order of appellate

2025:JHHC:35805

authority but the same was also dismissed and the

order passed by the disciplinary authority, modified by

the appellate authority has been sustained.

10. At the cost of repetition, after going through

the impugned orders passed by the respondent

authorities, I don't find any error either with respect to

the merits of the case or any error in the procedure. In

other words, neither there is any perversity in the orders

impugned; nor there is any procedural irregularity. As

such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

11. Even otherwise, the law with regards to

judicial review is also well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of N. Gangaraj (supra), by a

judgment dated 14th February, 2020 has reiterated that

scope of judicial review is confined only to the decision-

making process. Power of judicial review conferred on

Constitutional Court or Tribunal is not that of an

appellate authority but is of a review of the manner in

which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is

meant to ensure that individual receives fair treatment

and not to ensure that that conclusion which the

authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the

Court. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment read

as under -

9. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that the High Court is not a court of appeal over the

2025:JHHC:35805

decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. The Court held as under : (AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7) "7. ... The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence."

10. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] , again a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. 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 eyes of the court. The court/tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under : (SCC pp. 759-60, paras 12-13) "12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. 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 inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal 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/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry 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/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] , this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or

2025:JHHC:35805

suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."

12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the

instant application stands dismissed. However, there

shall be no order as to cost. Pending I.A., if any, is also

closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

December 01, 2025 Fahim/-

AFR/NAFR Uploaded on 1/12/2025