[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Bhawani Singh vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 29 January, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:2822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1273 of 2019
---------
Bhawani Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Shivnath Singh, R/o
Vill/Mohalla:-Jawahar Nagar, P.O.:-Bidhuna, P.S.:-Bidhuna, Dist:-
Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affair,
Government of India, having its office at North Block, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi, P.O. + P.S.+Dist:-New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affair, Government of India,
having its office at North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi,
P.O+P.S + Dist:- New Delhi.
3. Director General of C.I.S.F, having its office at Block No-13,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003, P.O + PS +
Dist:- New Delhi.
4. The Inspector General of C.I.S.F, Eastern Sector Ranchi,
Government of India, having its office at Tiril, P.O + P.S-
Dhurwa, Dist:-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Deputy Inspector General of C.I.S.F, East Zone Head
Quarter Patna, Government of India, having its office at Boring
Road, P.O + P.S-Patliputra, Dist:-Patna, Bihar.
6. The Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F Unit B.C.C.L Dhanbad,
Government of India, having its office at P.O-Koylanagar, P.S-
Saraidhela, Dist:-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
7. The Commandant, C.I.S.F Unit B.C.C.L Dhanbad, Government
of India, having its office at P.O-Koylanagar, P.S-Saraidhela,
Dist:-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
8. The Deputy Commandant, C.I.S.F Unit B.C.C.L Dhanbad,
Government of India, having its office at P.O- Barakar, P.S-
Kulti, Dist:-Bardhaman, West Bengal.
9. The Assistant Commandant, C.I.S.F Unit B.C.C.L Dhanbad,
Government of India, having its office at P.O- Barakar, P.S-
Kulti, Dist:-Bardhaman, West Bengal. ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Gyan Prakash Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Leena Mukherjee, C.G.C.
---------
13/Dated:-29.01.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner praying therein for quashing the order of punishment
2026:JHHC:2822
whereby it was ordered that five days' pay amount shall not be
paid to the petitioner.
3. Briefly stated, CISF is a Central Armed Police Force of
the Union of India. It is deployed in sensitive Sectors such as
Airports, Ports, Units of Department of Atomic Energy,
Department of Space, Metro, Coal Sector, Power and Steel. The
force is also deployed on Internal Security duties, VIP Security and
Election Duties. The force, therefore, requires maintaining
discipline of the highest order.
4. In the instant case, CISF No. 924523999 HC/GD
Bhawani Singh of CISF Unit, BCCL Dhanbad was issued with
charge memorandum under Rule-37 of CISF Rules, 2001 by Asstt.
Commandant, Area-XII CISF Unit BCCL, Dhanbad vide
memorandum No. V-15014 / BCCL / AC / AREA-XII / Disc /
2018 / 902 Dated 11.05.2018 for the following Article of Charge:-
आरोप
बल सं या 924523999 आ/ जीडी भवानी सह े सं या 12, के औसुब
इकाई बीसीसीएल धनबाद ने दनांक 16.03.2018 को िनरी क ारा
अिनयिमत प से 12 घ टे कत पर लगातार तैनात कर हराशमे ट करने का
िनराधार गलत / अस य आरोप लगाया गया साथ ही अपनी सम या का
समाधान के िनपटारा हेतु िबना िवभागीय णाली (उपल ध आन लाइन र स
े ल
ऑफ ीवांस िस टम) का उपभोग कये सीधे माननीय धानमं ी भारत सरकार
को संबोिधत ऑनलाइन ीवांस तुत कया िजससे उसके ारा व र
अिधका रय (िनरी क) क एवं बल क ितमा को कलं कत कया गया। उ
कृ य बल सद य के अनुशासनहीनता एवं उ अिधका रय के आदेश के ित
अवहेलना को द शत करता है। अतः आरोप है।
5. As matter of fact, the petitioner had submitted a
complaint on 16.03.2018 directly to Hon'ble Prime Minister
through online grievance, without availing departmental remedy
by way of available online grievance system against Inspector /
2026:JHHC:2822
Area XII that the Inspector had harassed him continuously since
last six months by irregular deployment of 12 hours duty. As
such, to find out the fact, an enquiry was conducted by appointing
an Inquiry Officer Shri A K Sirohi, Asstt. Commandant CISF Unit
DVC Panchet, wherein a prima-facie case of allegation of
neglecting the orders of the senior officers and making
representation directly to Prime Minister of India without availing
the departmental system has been established.
6. The Inquiry officer conducted the preliminary enquiry
as per laid down procedure and came to the conclusion that
necessary approval for deployment of CISF personnel on 12 hours
in some areas/posts of Area No. XII due to shortage of manpower
on various reasons viz. Election duty / temporary duty /Course /
Posting / etc. was given by the Competent Authority viz. Asstt.
Commandant Area XII on 22.09.2017.
7. The petitioner during the period from October 2017 to
March 2018 was deployed for 12 hours duty on 26 occasions due
to operational requirement, whereas he was put on shift /
magazine duties for 8 hours on 125 occasions and he was also
granted 59 days leave during the period. As such the complaint /
grievance made by the petitioner alleging that he was being
harassed by the Inspector by being put on 12 hours duty for last
six months continuously / irregularly without the approval of the
competent authority, is baseless and false. Being, a disciplined
member of the force, making such false allegation against the
senior officer is a serious offence, which cannot be overlooked.
2026:JHHC:2822
Therefore, committing such an undisciplined act of making false
allegation against senior officer i.e., Inspector (Coy Commander)
tarnished the image of his senior as well as the Force and as per
terms and conditions of service, every member of the Force is
liable to maintain absolute discipline, integrity and his conduct
should be of a member of the disciplined Force and any breach of
rules and regulations is punishable under specific rules
/regulations of the organization.
8. Thereafter, after the issuance of charge sheet, an order
of punishment has been passed. Being aggrieved by the order of
punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was duly
considered and the appellant authority after perusal of case file
and preliminary inquiry and sustained the order of punishment of
withholding five days' pay of the petitioner.
Petitioner has also assailed the order of appeal
sustaining the order of punishment, before the revisional
authority which was also dismissed.
9. Admittedly, the punishment imposed is a minor
punishment and as per the counter affidavit which has not been
rebutted by the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was made; as
such, there is no procedural irregularity in imposing the
punishment.
10. Looking to the nature of charge, it appears that the
petitioner is expected to maintain high degree of discipline in all
aspects of life; as such, it was not expected from the petitioner,
who belonged to the disciplined force. Further on the issue of
2026:JHHC:2822
quantum of punishment, it is only withholding of five days' pay
which itself indicates that it is a sort of warning.
11. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
orders. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands rejected.
12. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
JANUARY 29, 2026
vikas/-
uploaded
06.02.2026
