Madras High Court
S.Selvakumar vs The Union Of India on 1 August, 2022
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01.08.2022
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
S.Selvakumar .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Union of India,
Rep. By its Secretary to the Government,
Department of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2.The Director General,
CISF Head Quarters,
No.13, CGO Complex,
Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.
3.The Inspector General,
CISF South West Head Quarters Airport Sector II,
CISF Unit ASG KIAL Bengaluru,
Village & Post : Devanahalli,
District : North Bengaluru,
State : Karnataka 560 300.
4.The Deputy Inspector General/ Airport Sector,
CISF Head Quarters south Zone,
'D' Block First Floor, Rajaji Bhawan,
Besant Nagar, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu – 600 090.
5.The Commandant,
CISF Unit ASG RGIA Hyderabad,
Mamidipally Road, Shamshabadi,
District : Hyderabad
State : Andhra Pradesh 501 218. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 9
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against
the order dated 12.07.2021 made in W.P.No.14208 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Hari Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
12.07.2021 recorded on W.P.No.14208 of 2021. This appeal is by
the original writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the
writ petition, which pertains to initiation of disciplinary proceedings
afresh, under the orders of the Revisional Authority.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
for the alleged misconduct, the disciplinary authority had imposed
punishment, which the appellate authority confirmed, which the
revisional authority set aside with the further direction to the
disciplinary authority to initiate fresh inquiry for imposition of
major penalty. It is submitted that, consequences of the above
direction was challenged before this Court which the learned Single
Judge has not entertained. It is submitted that, the root of the
cause of action was arbitrary exercise of powers by the Revisional
Authority and therefore this appeal be entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the
respondent authorities has submitted that the order of the
Revisional Authority is not under challenge and further that what
was ordered by the Revisional Authority was well within his
competence and therefore consequences thereof is rightly not
entertained. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record, this Court
finds as under:-
4.1 The writ petitioner who is an Armed Constable in the
CISF and who was posted at Vizag Airport (Cargo Air Side Duty)
was found not attending to his duty diligently, for which the
Disciplinary Authority (Assistant Commandant) instituted
disciplinary proceedings under Rule 37 of CISF Rules, 2001 (for
imposition of minor penalty), wherein the writ petitioner took the
defence that not only he was unwell, he was under the treatment
of the departmental doctor. This defence was considered by the
disciplinary authority and ultimately he imposed punishment of
'fine to an amount equivalent to five days pay fine'. This was done
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
vide order dated 17.10.2018 by the Assistant Commdant CISF
Unit, ASG Vizag. Whether the disciplinary authority was justified,
in the facts of this case, to impose such a lenient punishment is
not the subject matter before this Court. It was the discretion as
the Disciplinary Authority, in the facts of the case, considering the
health and explanation of the writ petitioner, to restrict the
punishment to the above extent. In any case, the charge memo
itself was issued under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, so major
punishment even otherwise could not have been imposed, which
the Disciplinary Authority rightly did not.
4.2 According to the writ petitioner, he ought not to have
been punished at all. He therefore filed appeal before the higher
authority (DY. Commandant) and that authority dismissed the
appeal vide order dated 12.11.2018 and confirmed the order
passed by the disciplinary authority.
4.3 The matter should have been rested there. The writ
petitioner however was still hopeful that his higher authority shall
interfere in the punishment order. He therefore filed revision
petition. The Revisional Authority (Commandant) was of the view
that, the writ petitioner ought to have been imposed major penalty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
and therefore he vide order dated 05.02.2019 not only set aside
the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the
appellate authority but set side the charge memo dated
03.10.2018 itself which was Rule 37 of the CISF Rules and gave
further direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 36
of CISF Rules, 2001 i.e. for imposition of major penalty. It is this
latter part of the order of the Revisional Authority which led to
further proceedings against the writ petitioner, which was
questioned before this Court, which learned Single Judge, in the
facts of the case, was not inclined to entertain.
5. We have considered the reasons recorded by the
disciplinary authority, so also the appellate authority and the
reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority to give further
directions to initiate the disciplinary proceedings afresh. Though in
a given case the Revisional Authority can exercise his powers, in
the facts of the case, we find that, when the disciplinary authority
as well as the appellate authority both had thought that the
explanation offered by the delinquent was satisfactory to restrict
imposition of punishment to minor punishment, while exercising
revisional jurisdiction, that too in the revision application filed by
the delinquent, giving direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
afresh for imposition of major penalty was too harsh the decision
by the revisional authority. According to us, the same ought to
have been interfered in the writ petition. Refusal to exercise
discretion in these glaring facts, according to us, has resulted in
miscarriage of justice, which according to us is an error apparent
on the face of record and therefore we deem it necessary to
correct that error under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed:-
6.1 This writ appeal is allowed.
6.2 The order passed by learned Single Judge is quashed
and set aside.
6.3 The writ petition is allowed by moulding the relief as
under:-
6.3.1 The order passed by the Revisional Authority,
Commandant, CISF Hyderabad dated 05.02.2019 is set aside to
the extent it orders setting side the charge memo dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
03.10.2018 (under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules) and has given
further direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings afresh under
Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2001 (for imposition of major penalty). All
consequential actions would not survive and stand quashed.
6.3.2 The orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority
and Appellate Authority dated 17.10.2018 and 12.11.2018
respectively are confirmed. The revision application filed by the
writ petitioner against those two orders stands dismissed.
6.4 This appeal is allowed in above terms. No costs. C.M.P.
No.9690 of 2022 would not survive.
(P.U., J) (V.B.S., J)
01.08.2022
Index:No
ssm/28
To:
1.The Union of India,
Rep. By its Secretary to the Government,
Department of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2.The Director General,
CISF Head Quarters,
No.13, CGO Complex,
Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.
3.The Inspector General,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
CISF South West Head Quarters Airport Sector II,
CISF Unit ASG KIAL Bengaluru,
Village & Post : Devanahalli,
District : North Bengaluru,
State : Karnataka 560 300.
4.The Deputy Inspector General/ Airport Sector,
CISF Head Quarters south Zone,
'D' Block First Floor, Rajaji Bhawan,
Besant Nagar, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu – 600 090.
5.The Commandant,
CISF Unit ASG RGIA Hyderabad,
Mamidipally Road, Shamshabadi,
District : Hyderabad
State : Andhra Pradesh 501 218.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
ssm
W.A.No.1476 of 2022
01.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
