Madras High Court
Cisf Unit vs Suboth Kumar Singh on 6 February, 2025
Bench: S.S. Sundar, C.Saravanan
WA.No.2718/2023
fIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
WA.No.2718/2023
& CMP.No.22886/2023
1.Union of India
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2.The Director General
CISF Head Quarters
No.13, CGO complex,
Lodhi road, New Delhi 110 003.
3.The Inspector General
CISF Head Quarters South Sector,
Chennai Port Trust Campus
Near War Memorial, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Deputy Inspector General
CISF Head Quarters South Zone
'D' Block First Floor Rajaji Bhawan
Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.
5.The Senior Commandant
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2718/2023
CISF Unit, ChPT Chennai
Chennai Port Trust Campus,
New War Memorial, Chennai 600 001. ... Appellants
Vs.
Suboth Kumar Singh ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 14.06.2022 passed in WP.No.10519/2014.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Diwakar
For Respondent : Mr.B.Harikrishnan
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
(1)This appeal is directed the order of the learned Single Judge dated
14.06.2022 passed in WP.No.10519/2014 allowing the writ petition filed
by the respondent herein for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus
to quash the order of the 3rd respondent dated 21.02.2014 confirming the
orders passed by the 4th and 5th respondents herein dated 08.11.2013 and
10.07.2013 respectively and to direct the respondents to reinstate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent herein into service with all monetary benefits.
(2)Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as
follows:
(3)The respondent herein joined the service as Constable on 15.11.1985 in
the Central Industrial Security force [CISF] originally at IOC Barauni,
Bihar. While he was serving at CISF Unit at Chennai Port Trust, a charge
memo under Rule 36 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules was
issued to the respondent on 07.03.2017 alleging that the respondent who
was deployed in 'B' shift duty, was found in possession of unaccounted
amount of Rs.410/- which was recovered from the front pocket of his
uniform shirt on 25.02.2013. This according to the appellant was in
violation of the Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2010 and Standing
Security Procedure of Administrative Building Key Board Duty Post of
CISF Unit, ChPT, Chennai. After finding the respondent/writ petitioner
guilty of the charges and relying upon the conduct of the respondent/writ
petitioner, a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the
writ petitioner by the 5th appellant which was later confirmed by the other
appellants. Challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
writ petitioner filed WP.No.10519/2014.
(4)It is not in dispute that the charges itself was framed alleging that the
respondent herein was found to be in possession of a sum of Rs.410/-
when he was on duty and this misconduct, according to the appellants is
in violation of the Office Memorandum. The Enquiry Officer found that
the explanation offered by the respondent herein that the amount he had
on that day, was given by his colleague by cancellation of train ticket was
not proved. The Enquiry Officer, after finding that the respondent herein
was unable to establish or prove his version during enquiry, found him
guilty of the charges. The learned Single Judge while examining the
facts, held that the misconduct alleged is not so serious and the
punishment is grossly disproportionate to the alleged delinquency.
(5)It is not the case of appellant that the respondent herein was in possession
of any money which was ill-gotten. Since the previous misconduct was
also minor and only censure on two occasions and deduction of seven
days pay on the salary of the respondent was imposed as punishment,
learned Single Judge found that the punishment of compulsory retirement
is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent. Therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition
by setting aside the order of punishment which was confirmed by various
authorities.
(6)However, it was observed that the respondent is not entitled for
backwages during the period for which he was not in engagement
pursuant to the order of punishment. The appellants were also directed to
reinstate the respondent into service. It is also held that the respondent's
pay and revision of pay shall be granted with prospective effect.
(7)This Court finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge. Even though the learned Judge observed that the
appellants may proceed against the respondent for minor punishment, this
Court, taking into consideration the length of time and the fact that the
respondent is retiring on 03.01.2026, recommend for dropping
proceedings and directs the appellants to reinstate the respondent
immediately and give the pay from the date of order, i.e., 14.06.2022.
(8)With the above directions, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [C.S.N., J.]
06.02.2025
AP
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation: Yes
To
1.Union of India
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2.The Director General
CISF Head Quarters
No.13, CGO complex,
Lodhi road, New Delhi 110 003.
3.The Inspector General
CISF Head Quarters South Sector,
Chennai Port Trust Campus
Near War Memorial, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Deputy Inspector General
CISF Head Quarters South Zone
'D' Block First Floor Rajaji Bhawan
Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.
5.The Senior Commandant
CISF Unit, ChPT Chennai
Chennai Port Trust Campus,
New War Memorial, Chennai 600 001.
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.SARAVANAN, J.,
AP
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
