Madras High Court
Central Industrial Security Force vs C.Devarajan on 10 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 3162 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No.3162 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.25723 of 2025
1. Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi.
2. The Director General
Central Industrial Security Force
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110 003.
3. The Inspector General
Central Industrial Security Force
South Sector, Head Quarters
Near War Memorial
Chennai-600 009.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police
Central Industrial Security Force
South Sector, Head Quarters
Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar
Chennai-600 090.
5. The Commandant
Page Nos.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 03:32:01 pm )
W.A No. 3162 of 2025
Central Industrial Security Force
Visakhapattinam Port Trust
Visakhapattinam - 539 035
Andhra Pradesh. ..Appellants
Vs
C.Devarajan
HC/GD No.864502834
CSF Unit, VPT
Visakhapattinam. ..Respondent
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to allow this writ
appeal by setting aside the order dated 26.02.2025 in W.P.No.5360 of 2015.
For Appellants : Ms.Sunita Kumari
For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Mujbur Rahman
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 26.02.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5360 of 2015. By the said
order, the learned Single Judge modified the punishment imposed on the
respondent–writ petitioner from reduction of pay by one stage for a period of
one year to reduction of pay for a period of three months without cumulative
effect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 03:32:01 pm )
2. The respondent, who was then serving in the establishment of the
appellants, was issued a charge memorandum alleging that on 04.11.2011, at
about 13:30 hours, immediately after completion of duty, he was found
standing in front of “B” Sector Barrack in a suspicious manner, and that upon
noticing the arrival of the staff for pocket checking, he ran away to evade such
inspection.
3. A departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the
applicable service rules, during which the charge against the respondent was
held proved. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary
Authority imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period
of one year, which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent–employee filed W.P. No.
5360 of 2015 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned
order, modified the punishment as stated above. Assailing the said order, the
present writ appeal has been preferred by the employer–appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 03:32:01 pm )
5. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
submitted that the charge of misconduct having been duly proved in a properly
conducted domestic enquiry, and the disciplinary proceedings having been held
in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice, the punishment
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was just, proper, and proportionate to
the charge.
6. She further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in interfering
with the quantum of punishment, especially in the absence of any procedural
infirmity or violation of natural justice. It was also submitted that, even
assuming that the punishment imposed was considered excessive or
disproportionate, the learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter to
the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the punishment, instead of
substituting his own view.
7. Per contra, Mr. A.S. Mujbur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent–employee, submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly
exercised judicial discretion in the peculiar facts of the case. He contended that
the alleged misconduct, even if accepted as proved, had occurred after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 03:32:01 pm )
completion of duty hours, and there was no material evidence to indicate any
mala fide intention or moral turpitude on the part of the respondent.
8. It was further contended that the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority was grossly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged
misconduct, and therefore, the interference by the learned Single Judge was
both reasonable and justified. He submitted that the order impugned does not
suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity warranting interference in appeal.
9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either
side and perused the materials available on record.
10. It is not in dispute that the alleged misconduct occurred after
completion of duty hours. The learned Single Judge, upon examining the
record, has observed that even assuming the allegation to be true, the same
might constitute a minor violation of conduct, but would not justify the major
penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for one year.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 03:32:01 pm )
11. It is well settled that judicial review of disciplinary action does not
extend to re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of findings of the
Disciplinary Authority, except in cases where the findings are perverse,
unsupported by evidence, or where the punishment imposed is shockingly
disproportionate to the misconduct established. However, in exceptional
circumstances, the Court may interfere with or modify the punishment to
prevent manifest injustice, provided reasons are clearly recorded.
12. Ordinarily, when a punishment is found to be disproportionate to the
charge, the matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration
of the quantum of punishment. Nevertheless, this rule is not absolute. Where
the facts are peculiar and no useful purpose would be served by remitting the
matter, the High Court may itself modify the punishment to ensure that it is
commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
13. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the
fact that the alleged misconduct occurred post duty hours, and except for the
allegation that the respondent ran away to avoid pocket checking, there was no
conclusive evidence of any misappropriation, dishonesty, or mala fide conduct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 03:32:01 pm )
Therefore, the learned Single Judge, having regard to the overall circumstances,
found that the punishment of reduction of pay for one year was excessive and
accordingly, modified it to reduction of pay for three months without
cumulative effect.
14. On careful perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, we find
that the interference was neither arbitrary nor unwarranted. The modification of
the punishment has been made upon sound reasoning and in exercise of judicial
discretion consistent with the principles of proportionality.
15. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in
the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that would justify interference.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this writ
appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
10.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
mk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 03:32:01 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
mk
10.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 03:32:01 pm )
