Karnataka High Court
Sri C Puttappa S/O Late Channabasappa vs The Commandant on 16 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.23193 OF 2012 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SRI.C.PUTTAPPA
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
EX-HEAD CONSTABLE NO.88229591
CISF UNIT, SAC/PRL
AHMEDABAD
NOW UNDER ORDERS OF COMPULSORY
RETIREMENT
R/AT PILLENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
KADUR TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.O. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMANDANT
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
(MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS)
(THUMBA), TIRUVANANTHAPURAM
KERALA STATE
KERALA - 695022
2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
DOS HEAD QUARTERS
ANTHARIKSHA BHAVAN
-2-
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU - 560064
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
CHENNAI PORT TRUST
SOUTH SECTOR
CHENNAI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.S.BHEEMAIAH, CGC FOR R.1 TO R.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS LEADING TO THE ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS
DATED 25.08.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 (2) ORDER DATED 19.10.2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY R.2 AND (3) DATED 13.01.2012
ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY R.3 AND AFTER PERUSAL OF ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER QUASHING THE SAID ORDERS WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.01.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner
assailing the order passed by respondent No.1 in imposing
penalty of compulsory retirement and the same is
confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional
Authority i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under;
The petitioner joined service in 1988 as Constable
(General Duty) at Central Industrial Security Force,
Chennai. Petitioner claimed that he has worked more than
23 years with unblemished service. Petitioner, while
working as a Head Constable (General Duty), CISF Unit,
SAC, Headband, was deputed for temporary duty on
14.10.2010 to proceed to CISF, DOS Head Quarters,
Bengaluru to handover service documents along with other
papers related to W.P.No.4667/2010. After completion of
work at CISF Unit, DIG/DOS Hqrs, Bengaluru, the
petitioner reported at IG/CISF SS Hqrs, Chennai to get
approval of Draft Counter Affidavit and thereafter, he was
directed to report at NISA, Hyderabad to get approval of
DCA by IG/NISA. After getting approval of DCA, he was
further directed to proceed to IG/WS Hqrs, Mumbai.
Petitioner, after reaching Mumbai, claims that he could not
enter CISF, Mumbai terminal on account of rain and he
was waiting at nearby bus stop. However, he claimed that
he fell asleep on account of fatigue as he was continuously
travelling. As he woke up, he realized that his bag was
missing.
3. The petitioner claimed that he immediately
reported the above said incident to the concerned
superiors and as per advise of the superiors, he contacted
DIG/Airport, Mumbai to seek assistance to lodge FIR.
Thereafter, the petitioner returned to his unit at
Ahmadabad. Upon his arrival, the petitioner has narrated
the incident to the Deputy Commandant. On 02.12.2010,
the petitioner has lodged FIR in connection with missing
documents. On 24.02.2011, respondent No.1 issued the
Articles of charge against the petitioner seeking his
explanation. The petitioner was charged with allegation
that he has misplaced official documents while he was on
duty and delayed the process of filing FIR. In the Articles
of charge, it was also noted that petitioner has already
been awarded 3 minor punishments earlier.
4. The petitioner claimed that though he has offered
satisfactory explanation to the charges, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report with a finding that petitioner is guilty
of charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority
issued show-cause notice based on the enquiry report and
the petitioner offered his reply. Respondent No.1, ignoring
reply given by the petitioner, imposed penalty of
compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary
benefits. Aggrieved by the order of the penalty, the
petitioner filed an appeal by challenging the same before
the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has
dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by
respondent No.1. The petitioner availed remedy of appeal
before the Inspector General, CISF by filing a revision
petition. The Revisional Authority has rejected the Revision
Petition vide order dated 13.01.2012.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would
vehemently argue and contend that the Enquiry Officer
has selectively taken cognizance of the material placed on
record and the evidence, which was found to be in support
of the petitioner, has been consciously ignored. Therefore,
he would point out that the enquiry is tainted with bias. He
would further vehemently argue and contend that
documents based on which enquiry was initiated, the
Author of the said document is not examined and
therefore, the same has seriously prejudiced the defence
of the petitioner herein. Therefore, he would point out that
the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority
ought not to have taken cognizance of the documents on
which the Enquiry Officer has proceeded to submit his
report.
6. The second limb of arguments canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the
punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate
to the charges levelled against the petitioner. In support of
his contention, he has placed reliance on the following
judgments;
1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LIMITED
V. PRAKASH CHAND JAIN REPORTED IN
AIR 1969 SC 983.
2. ANIL KUMAR V. PRESIDING
OFFICER AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR
1985 SC 1121.
3. KULDEEP SINGH V. THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS
REPORTED IN AIR 1999 SC 677.
4. KASHINATH DIKSHITHA V. UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR
1986 SC 2118
5. UNION OF INDIA V. S K KAPOOR
REPORTED IN (2011)4 SCC 589.
6. DEV SINGH VS. PUNJAB TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2003 SCC
(L & S) 1198.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, however, would point out that on account of
incorrigible attitude of the petitioner, the Disciplinary
Authority was justified in imposing penalty. Therefore, no
indulgence is warranted at the hands of this Court. He
would also point out that petitioner was awarded three
minor punishments for various misconduct and indiscipline
activities. Referring to the materials on record, he would
point out that petitioner has not disputed that vital
documents were lost on account of gross negligence.
Therefore, he would contend that Disciplinary Authority
having examined enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry
Officer and bearing in mind the gravity of loss of the
official documents due to careless attitude and negligence
on the part of the petitioner, the punishment awarded to
the petitioner does not warrant any interference at the
hands of this Court. He would also point that the
Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have
declined to interfere with the order of punishment for want
of counter materials at the instance of the petitioner
herein during enquiry proceedings.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the
materials on record. On examining Enquiry Report and the
order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority,
there is no dispute that the petitioner was entrusted the
duty of handing over documents at IG/WS Hqrs, Mumbai.
During the course of journey to Mumbai, the petitioner lost
official documents, which lead to initiation of enquiry
against the petitioner. Though there are sufficient
materials to sustain the order of Enquiry Officer holding
that the petitioner is guilty of loss of vital documents,
however, this Court would find that punishment awarded
by the Disciplinary Authority is found to be totally
disproportionate. Even if the charges are held to be
proved, it is crucial to assert that severity of dismissal as a
punishment for mere loss of some documents, without any
ulterior motive, is obviously disproportionate to the alleged
misconduct. The foundational principle of employment law
underscores the necessity for proportionality in meting out
disciplinary actions, ensuring that the punishment aligns
with the gravity of the offense committed.
10. Firstly, it is imperative to acknowledge that the
petitioner has admitted to falling asleep on a bus stop,
resulting in inadvertent loss of documents. Human error is
an inherent aspect of any professional setting, and
therefore, a compassionate consideration of such instances
is essential in maintaining a fair and just workplace.
Furthermore, the principle of progressive discipline should
be invoked, emphasizing the need for proportionate
punishment. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in
catena of judgments has held that severe punishment
should be a last resort, reserved for instances of grave
misconduct and not for an isolated incident of loss of
documents. In the present case on hand, the documents
were lost by the petitioner, which can be attributed to
fatigue or human error. It is borne out from the records
that the petitioner was found to be travelling all the way
from Ahmadabad to Bengaluru and from Bengaluru to
Chennai and from Chennai to Hyderabad and thereafter,
from Hyderabad to Mumbai. Therefore, on account of
continuous journey, it was quite natural for the petitioner
to have suffered fatigue.
11. If these significant details are looked into, then
this Court is of the view that punishing petitioner for a
single incident of loss of documents, without a
comprehensive assessment of the circumstances and
without considering less severe alternatives, has to be
indeed considered as disproportionate and unjust
punishment.
12. The doctrine of proportionality constitutes
another vital aspect of judicial evaluation. The Court
assess whether severity of the punishment corresponds to
the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The main grievance
against the petitioner is that he has not only lost some
official documents but there was some laxness on the part
of the petitioner in not immediately registering the FIR.
The delay in lodging FIR may be on account of several
factors and circumstances. There is no tangible evidence
to indicate that petitioner did not react swiftly.
Interestingly, department has not substantiated as to what
are those vital documents that were lost by the petitioner,
which would only warrant harsh punishment of
"compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary
benefits". No materials are placed on record during the
course of enquiry to substantiate that these documents
were originals and the said documents could not be
rebuilt. Though it is not in dispute that petitioner on
account of fatigue was not able to take care of the official
documents, however, the petitioner is compelled to face
departmental enquiry for minor offence. Therefore, this
Court is more than satisfied that the disciplinary action in
the present facts and circumstances lacks due diligence
and therefore, this Court is bound to intervene with the
penalty imposed by the Authority. Employment decisions
including dismissals are subject to constitutional scrutiny
and the Courts often ensure that these decisions are
complied with fundamental rights and principles. If a
dismissal or penalty of compulsory retirement, such as in
the case of a minor error, contradicts societal expectations
of fairness and justice and therefore, this Court is more
than satisfied that the punishment imposed is found to be
disproportionate to the gravity of the offence alleged
against the petitioner. Though allegations stand proved,
this Court is not inclined to accept the order of penalty
awarded by the Authority.
13. Therefore, the matter needs to be remitted back
to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider maximum
punishment awarded in the present case on hand having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. While
upholding the findings and misconduct against the
petitioner, respondent No.1 is hereby directed to
reconsider and modify the punishment bearing in mind the
observations made by this Court as stated supra.
14. In view of the aforesaid observations, I proceed
to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The orders passed by
respondent Nos.1 to 3 vide Annexures-
F, H and K respectively are hereby
quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to
respondent No.1 to re-consider the
punishment imposed on the petitioner
strictly adhering to the observations
made by this Court in the course of the
order.
(iv) This exercise shall be
completed within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
