Devendra Singh vs Commandant
2023 Latest Caselaw 283 MP

                                                                      1
                                   IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                         AT JABALPUR
                                                              BEFORE
                                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                        ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                                      WRIT PETITION No. 1646 of 2000

                                  BETWEEN:-
                                  DEVENDRA SINGH S/O NARBADA SINGH, AGED ABOUT
                                  35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX CONSTABLE NO. 84 45 07
                                  107 CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, R/O
                                  JORAUT POST BHARIGAWAN TEH. MAUGANJ DISTT.
                                  REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                 .....PETITIONER
                                  (BY SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

                                  AND
                                  1.    COMMANDANT         CENTRAL       INDUSTRIAL
                                        SECURITY FORCE F-8 AVANI PLAZA, PREMNAGAR
                                        ROAD AHMEDABAD 15 (GUJARAT)

                                  2.    DEPUTY   INSPECTOR    GENERAL      CENTRAL
                                        INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE R.C.F.L. COMPLEX
                                        CHAMBOOR, MUMBAI 400 074 (MAHARASHTRA)

                                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                                  (BY MS. KANAK GAHARWAR - ADVOCCATE )

                                        Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                                  following:
                                                                       ORDER

This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 13/04/1999 by Commandant, CISF, Ahmadabad (Annexure-P/5) by which petitioner is visited with penalty of dismissal from service so also being aggrieved of order dated

Signature Not Verified SAN 03/11/1999 passed by DIG, CISF, Mumbai (Annexure-P/7) dismissing the

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH departmental appeal filed by the petitioner.

Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:39 IST

Petitioner's contention is that as many as 12 charges were levelled on him

vide charge sheet dated 28/8/1998 (Annexure-P/1). Petitioner had filed an application (Annexure-P/2) for change of enquiry officer which was accepted by the authorities and petitioner was transferred from Hoshangabad to CISF Unit, SMPL Vadinar. Thereafter enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer proved charge Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 12 whereas disproved charge Nos.1, 7, 8, 9 and 10. However, later on, disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry officer and found even charge No.7 to be proved.

It is submitted that framing of 12 charges was indicative of prejudice and preconceived mind to remove the petitioner from the service by magnifying trivial matters. It is also submitted that enquiry officer did not discuss the

evidence and proved the charges without discussing any evidence. Charge of consumption of liquor has been arbitrarily held to be proved though no medical examination was conducted to prove that charge. It is submitted that on the basis of cryptic evidence charges have been proved which is arbitrary and illegal. Taking these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside.

Smt. Kanak Gaharwar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, by reading the enquiry report submits that charges were proved beyond doubt.

Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. P.Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 , it is submitted scope of interference with disciplinary proceedings is very limited. Reading para-12 it is submitted that scope is limited, therefore, no Signature Not Verified SAN indulgence should be shown in the matter.

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:39 IST Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of

Union of India and others Vs. Diler Singh, (2016) 13 SCC 71 to point out that unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, then no scope for interference.

It is submitted that petitioner was a member of a uniform service and the parameters of discipline are much higher for a uniform service, then from those observed in other services. Thus, when examined in light of charge of indiscipline, consumption of alcohol on duty, causing Marpeet with fellow employees and disobeying the orders of superiors by not performing duties in the uniform and insisting on adorning civilian costume, are serious matters. It is submitted that in fact the complainant Shri H.G. Gothi was also found delinquent and was terminated from service in separate proceedings.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and taking this fact into consideration that charges have been proved by the enquiry officer. Petitioner had not produced any person in defence evidence. He did not challenge the procedural aspects of the enquiry at any point of time, the law laid down by three Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation & another Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, AIR 1997 SC 1030 is crystal clear where it is held that -"at the outset, it needs to be mentioned that High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the

findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate authority/authorities. Jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable Signature Not Verified SAN

opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and or the punishment is Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:39 IST

totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. Even in the

case of P. Gunasekaran (supra), nine parameters have been laid down which can be examined by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Para-12 of the said judgment reads as under:

"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

(a). the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b). the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c). there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

(d). the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

(e). the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced Signature Not Verified SAN by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:39 IST (f). the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly

arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

(g). the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

(h).the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i). the finding of fact is based on no evidence."

Same is the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Diler Singh (supra) and when the test of proportionality as applied by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Kumar and others Vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, Union of India and another Vs. G.Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 are applied, then it is evident that there is no material to held that punishment is disproportionate or shocking to the conscience of the Court. In fact, petitioner being a member of a disciplined force when deviates to such an extent from the discipline and behaved in an untoward manner which is not conceived, it is difficult to hold that the punishment of dismissal as has been imposed is disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience as held in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC 388.

Thus, in view of said legal proposition, when it is found that enquiry is held by a competent authority according to the procedure prescribed, there is no violation of the principles of nature justice, authorities have reached a fair Signature Not Verified SAN conclusion without being influenced by any extraneous material and the Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:39 IST conclusion on the very face of it, is neither arbitrary nor capricious besides

disciplinary authority afforded adequate opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence in his support and case being based on the prosecution evidence, both documentary and oral, no indulgence is required in the matter.

Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.01.09 17:16:39 IST