Jharkhand High Court
Rajani Kanta Patra vs The Union Of India on 14 January, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 89 of 2023
Rajani Kanta Patra, aged about 71 years, son of Late Kashi Nath Patra,
resident of Balia, P.O. Balia, P.S. Balasore, District Balasore, Orissa.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India at North Block, P.O., P.S. & District-New Delhi.
2. The Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of
Home Affairs at Block No. 13, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O., P.S. &
District-New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Central Industrial Security
Force, Ministry of Home Affairs at Block No. 13, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, P.O., P.S. & District-New Delhi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General (Legal), Central Industrial Security
Force, Ministry of Home Affairs at Block No. 13, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, P.O., P.S. & District-New Delhi. ... .... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Mrs. Nikki Sinha, CGC
---------
Reserved On: - 02.01.2025 Delivered On: - 14.01.2025
---------
M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)
This appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment
dated 21.10.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3274 of 2020.
The case of the Writ Petitioner
2. The appellant, when he was posted as Assistant Commandant, CISF,
BSL, was served a charge memo dt. 07.12.2010 alleging that he committed
an act of misconduct on 03.10.2008 commenting about the caste (SC) of an
Inspector in front of an ASI and that he again on 16.04.2009 used, insulting
and intimidating remarks in his office on the same person, mentioning his
caste in front of another ASI, with intent to humiliate him.
3. The appellant retired from the CISF on 31.01.2011 but even prior
thereto vide order dt. 07.01.2011, he was informed that enquiry would
-1 of 7-
continue against him even after his superannuation under Rule 9 of the
Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.
4. Challenging the charge memo and initiation of departmental
proceedings, the appellant had filed W.P. (S) No. 4100 of 2011.
5. It appears that the complainant had also filed a criminal complaint
being Complaint Case No. 328 of 2009 dt. 04.07.2009 before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro against the appellant alleging that the appellant
had committed an offence under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thereafter Bokaro Police Station Case No. 40 of 2009 was lodged against
the appellant. However, final form was submitted in the criminal case; and
though the complainant preferred protest petition, the same came to be
dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate through an order dt. 27.09.2012.
6. The disciplinary proceedings were however, continued under Rule 9
of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.
7. The enquiry officer held the appellant guilty of misconduct and
furnished a copy of the enquiry report through a letter dt. 09.04.2012 to
enable him to submit representation.
8. Instead of responding thereto, the appellant only mentioned about
pendency of the above Writ petition before the Court and stated that he will
file representation if the Court directs him to do so.
9. Opinion of Union Public Service Commission was sought for by way of
consultation, and the UPSC advised that the ends of justice would be met if
penalty of 20% cut in monthly pension on permanent basis and forfeiture of
his entire gratuity, is imposed.
10. Copy of the advice of UPSC was sent to the appellant on 24.05.2013
for rebuttal and again the appellant responded stating about pendency of the
-2 of 7-
Writ Petition before the Court and stating that he will file representation, if
the Court directs him to do so.
11. He also raised certain other contentions, which were considered by
the competent authority and through an order dt. 03.09.2013, the 4th
respondent, after considering the records and advice tendered by UPSC,
held that the charges were proved against the appellant. He rejected
appellant's explanation and imposed penalty of 20% cut in monthly pension
on permanent basis and forfeiture of his entire gratuity.
12. The appellant challenged the said order of punishment in W.P. (S)
No.679 of 2014 before this Court, but it was dismissed on 08.01.2018
granting him liberty to challenge the said punishment by way of departmental
appeal. However, he did not file any such appeal.
13. The previous writ petition, W.P. (S) No. 4100 of 2011, also was
dismissed on 27.08.2019 granting liberty to the appellant to file appeal,
which was already observed in order dt.08.01.2018, while dismissing W.P.
(S) No. 679 of 2014.
14. The appellant then filed a departmental appeal requesting that he be
exonerated, but the same was rejected by the competent authority.
15. Challenging the order passed on 25.03.2020 by the appellate
authority rejecting his appeal and also the order dt. 03.09.2013 of the 4th
respondent, the appellant preferred W.P. (S) No. 3274 of 2020, raising the
following three contentions:-
"a. The criminal case filed by the complainant ended in submission
of final form against which protest petition was also dismissed and
thus no case was made out against the petitioner in the criminal
court.
b. The term 'grave misconduct' has to be considered in the light of
the explanation to Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules as the
condition precedent for attracting penalty of withholding or
withdrawing pension gratuity is that the misconduct should come
-3 of 7-
within the definition of 'grave misconduct' but the conduct has been
referred to as 'Serious Misconduct.'
c. The impugned order of punishment is harsh and
disproportionate to the charges leveled and proved against the
petitioner".
16. The learned Single Judge, however, did not accept these contentions
and dismissed the writ petition on 21.10.2022.
The judgment of the learned single Judge
17. The learned Single Judge held that dismissal of the complaint/protest
petition by the criminal court has no bearing in the disciplinary proceedings
since the basis of the said order of dismissal of the protest/complaint petition
against the appellant by the court in the criminal case was (i) on account of
technical plea that the alleged incident had not taken in public view and (ii)
on account of non-examination of certain witnesses, in absence of
corroborative evidence; and that the complainant failed to prove that the
accused directed the complainant to withdraw the complaint.
18. The learned Single Judge held that dismissal of the complaint/protest
petition was only on account of technical reasons and did not affect the
departmental proceeding which was conducted after issuance of a charge
memo and upon consideration of materials in the departmental proceeding.
19. The learned Single Judge also rejected the plea of the appellant that
the misconduct attributed to the appellant was not a "grave misconduct" and
it was only a "serious misconduct".
The learned Single Judge held that even in the charge memo, the
conduct of the appellant was described as "gross misconduct" and that the
terms, "gross misconduct" and the term "grave misconduct" as defined in
Rule 8 (5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules connote the same extent of gravity of
charge with regard to its seriousness calling for disciplinary action under
-4 of 7-
Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules empowering the competent authority to
withhold pension/gratuity.
The learned Single Judge also rejected the plea of the appellant
that Rule 9 could only be invoked if the Government servant had caused any
pecuniary loss to the Government by placing reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. B Dev1.
20. The learned Single Judge also rejected the plea that punishment of
withholding of entire gratuity and 20% of all future pension is
disproportionate to the charge proved.
She held that the misconduct committed by the appellant was so
serious that he does not deserve any sympathetic view and the punishment
imposed against him cannot be said to be disproportionate much less
shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against the appellant.
21. Assailing these findings and the dismissal of the writ petition, this
appeal is preferred by the appellant.
Consideration by the Court
22. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge on all the three contentions urged by the counsel for the
appellant.
23. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that dismissal of the
complaint/protest petition was only on account of a technical reason that the
alleged incident had occurred in the closed chamber of the
appellant/accused and not in public view and so the offence under section 3
(i) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was not attracted.
(1998) 7 SCC 691.
-5 of 7-
24. But the charge in the disciplinary enquiry was about abusing the
subordinate on account of his caste and attempting to intimidate and
humiliate him and such conduct was unbecoming of a Government servant
and service in an armed force of the Union. This aspect was not decided in
the Criminal Court.
25. As held by the Supreme Court in Govind Das v. State of Bihar2, the
acquittal of an employee in the criminal proceedings would be based on the
view that the charges were beyond reasonable doubt, but since the standard
of proof required to prove a charge of misconduct in departmental
proceedings is not the same as that required to prove a criminal charge, the
acquittal of the employee in the criminal case cannot be made the basis for
setting aside the order for his termination from service, passed in the
disciplinary proceedings on the basis of evidence adduced in the
departmental proceedings conducted on the charges leveled against him.
26. Similar view was also taken in Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of
Commerce3.
27. The term 'gross misconduct' used in the charge memo also means
that the misconduct is a 'grave' misconduct i.e. extremely serious in nature
and merely because the word 'grave' misconduct was not used in the charge
memo, the appellant cannot take advantage of the same and contend that
Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules cannot be invoked.
28. It is also settled law that punishment awarded by the disciplinary
authority, unless shockingly disproportionate to the charge, should not be
(1997) 11 SCC 361
(2006) 10 SCC 572
-6 of 7-
interfered with, in exercise of power of judicial review [Devendra Swamy v.
Karnataka SRTC4 and Mithilesh Singh v Union of India5].
29. We cannot also overlook that the appellant was an employee in the
CISF, which was a disciplined force; and when the charge is a grave one like
in the instant case, leniency is not called for.
30. In Dalbir Singh v. Union of India6, the Supreme Court held that in
service matters, though past conduct, both positive and negative will be
relevant not only while referring to the misconduct but also in deciding the
proportionality of the punishment, the court should be cautious while
considering the case of an officer/soldier/employee of a disciplined force;
and the same yardstick or sympathetic consideration as in other cases,
cannot be applied.
31. So the plea of the counsel for the appellant about the past clean
conduct of the appellant cannot be a ground to interfere with the quantum of
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by
the appellate authority and also by the learned Single Judge.
32. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly,
dismissed. No costs.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
N.A.F.R.
APK
(2002) 9 SCC 644
(2003) 3 SCC 309
(2019) 7 SCC 84
-7 of 7-
