Jharkhand High Court
Arvind Kumar Singh S/O Manejar Singh vs The Union Of India on 24 January, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1773 of 2022
----
Arvind Kumar Singh S/o Manejar Singh, Resident of Bangra, PO
PS Bangra, District Siwan, Bihar 841245.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The Union of India.
2. The Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force,
Ministry of Home Affairs, C.G.O. Complex, PO PS Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
3. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force,
Eastern Sector Headquarters, Tiril, PO PS Dhurwa, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force
Unit, Bokaro Steel Limited, PO PS Bokaro Steel Limited, District
Bokaro, Jharkhand.
5. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit
Bokaro Steel Limited, PO PS Bokaro Steel Limited, District
Bokaro, Jharkhand.
6. The Deputy Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force,
Unit Bokaro Steel Limited, PO PS Bokaro Steel Limited, District
Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek S. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Nitu Sinha, C.G.C.
Mr. Suman Marandi, Advocate
----
ORDER
RESERVED ON 07.01.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 24.01.2025
8/ 24.01.2025 In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by
the revisional authority as contained in letter No.11015/East/LC/Rev-01/ 2022-
546, dated 31.01.2022; the order passed by the appellate authority as
contained in letter No.V-14013/BSL/CISF/LEGAL/AKS/2021-6843-(E) dated
20.11.2021 as also the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as contained
in letter No. V-15014/CISF/BSL/Admn.-II/A.K.Singh/Major/21-841 dated
25.08.2021 whereby and whereunder punishment of "reduction of pay by one
stage from Rs.35,300/- in Level 4 of Pay Matrix to Rs.34,300/- in Level 4 of
Pay Matrix for a period of one year with immediate effect; and it was directed
that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on
expiry of the above period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his
future increments of pay" was awarded to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment
imposed upon the petitioner, i.e., lowering of his pay by one stage in pay
matrix is absolutely illegal. He submitted that petitioner had no other option,
but to leave the Quarantine Centre during the Covid period because, it was
necessary for him to repair the phone as no one was there. He took all
precautions and thereafter returned. He pleaded that the second charge
leveled against the petitioner cannot be said to be a misconduct as the
petitioner had already been earlier punished for the same. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further pleaded that necessary documents were not handed over
to the petitioner, thus, he could not defend his case properly. Petitioner also
claimed that the Enquiry Officer was bias and his prayer to change the Enquiry
Officer was not adhered to.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India
submitted that in a Departmental Proceeding, petitioner was inflicted the
punishment of lowering of pay by one stage. He argued that the statutory
appeal was considered and the same was rejected by a reasoned order and
so was the revision also. He contended that this Court sitting in a writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise the
facts. There is no procedural illegality in the departmental enquiry. He further
argued that the punishment is neither harsh nor disproportionate, therefore, no
interference is necessary.
4. Petitioner is a member of a Disciplined Force. He is in Central
Industrial Security Force. He is a Constable. The petitioner was proceeded
against departmentally. There were two charges against the petitioner. The
first charge is that he was found Covid Positive and he was immediately
shifted to the Executive Hostel in a separate room for isolation on 29.04.2021.
On 01.05.2021 at about 10.30 when checking was being conducted, this
petitioner was found missing from his room. He had, in fact, left the isolation
centre and was mixing with the civilians. After some time, he was seen
entering the Executive Hostel in a two wheeler, thus, he disobeyed the orders
and acted irresponsibly being a Covid infected patient. The second charge
was that on earlier occasions he was already inflicted three minor
punishments, but inspite of that he did not mend himself.
5. From the records I find that the Enquiry Officer, after a proper
enquiry and giving full opportunity to the petitioner came to the conclusion that
the charge against the petitioner is proved. Petitioner was given an opportunity
and thereafter the impugned order of punishment was passed by which
the pay scale of the petitioner was reduced by one stage. Petitioner preferred
a departmental appeal. The grounds and submissions which were urged by
the petitioner were duly considered by the Appellate Authority and his appeal
was dismissed. The Revisional Authority also considered the entire defence of
the petitioner and dismissed the revision application of the petitioner.
6. While going through the punishment order, appellate order and
revisional order, I find that each and every point, which the petitioner raised,
were considered and was dealt by the authority. Even the documents were
also dealt with and answered. The Revisional Authority held that all the
documents were handed over to the petitioner and rest of the documents,
which the petitioner was asking for, had absolutely no relevance for the
purpose of this case. The allegation against the Enquiry Officer and the
Disciplinary Officer was also baseless, as held by the Revisional Authority. I
also find that the petitioner has unnecessarily alleged bias against the Enquiry
Officer without there being any strong backing. The Enquiry Officer found the
allegation against the petitioner, that inspite of being Covid positive, he left the
Covid Centre and mixed with the general public, to be proved. Being a
member of the Disciplinary Force, he had to maintain utmost discipline, which
he failed to do.
7. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not an appellate authority. The scope of judicial review
in departmental proceeding is very limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others
versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at
paragraph 37 thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court cannot act
as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led
before the enquiry Officer. By referring to judgment in the case of State of
Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao reported in 1963 AIR SC 1723,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court
to review the findings and arrive at a different finding. In a departmental
proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well settled that the High Court can
interfere where the departmental authority has acted against the principles of
natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or in violation of
the statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive,
the Court can also interfere. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High
Court shall not: -
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case
the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to
be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.
8. In view of the aforesaid settled principle, since the procedure has
been followed and the fact finding authority has held that the charges leveled
against the petitioner are proved and since there are no overwhelming material
to come to a different conclusion, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding
of fact that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct.
9. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Regional Manager & Disciplinary Authority versus S. Mohammed
Gaffar reported in (2002) 7 SCC 168 has held that unless the punishment or
penalty imposed by the disciplinary or Appellate Authority is either
impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should
not normally interfere with the same. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads
as under: -
"10. The High Court seems to have overlooked the
settled position that in departmental proceedings,
insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is
concerned, unless the punishment or penalty
imposed by the disciplinary or Appellate Authority is
either impermissible or such that it shocks the
conscience of the High Court, it should not normally
interfere with the same or substitute its own opinion
and either impose some other punishment or penalty
or direct the authority to impose a particular nature
or category of punishment of its choice."
10. In this case, punishment, which was imposed is lowering down the
pay of the petitioner by one stage. Though the second charge cannot be said
to be a misconduct, but the same can be taken into consideration for imposing
punishment. I find that the petitioner was earlier punished for different
misconducts thrice. The same was considered for imposing the punishment in
this case as it is not the first case of misconduct of the petitioner. The
punishment imposed is neither excessive nor harsh.
11. Considering what has been held above, I am not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
AFR
