Madras High Court
Adrash Kumar Mishra vs The Inspector General on 15 September, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 2711 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-09-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 2711 of 2025
And
CMP.No. 21801 of 2025
Adrash Kumar Mishra ..Appellant
Vs
1. The Inspector General
Central Industrial Security Force,
South Sector, Head Quarters,
New War Memorial,
Chennai-600009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
South Zone, Head Quarters,
Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar,
Chennai-600090.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
W.A No. 2711 of 2025
3.The Group Commandment,
CISF Group Headquarters,
C-2, Kendriya Bhavan,
Kakkanad,
Cochin-682030.
4.The Deputy Commandant,
Central Industrial Security Force Unit,
Cochin Port Trust,
Cochin-682003. ..Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 12.02.2024 passed in W.P.No. 18675 of 2021.
For Appellant: Mr.R.Thiyagarajan
For Respondents : Mr. P.J.Anitha, Senior Panel Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.02.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18675 of 2021. By the said
order, the learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the respondent herein,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
whereby the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed from service on account of
misconduct.
2. The facts in brief are as follows: The appellant/writ petitioner was
issued with a charge memorandum dated 07.02.2018. The charges levelled
against him related to threatening and abusing his superior officers, disobeying
their orders, creating panic and disturbance, and causing nuisance under the
influence of alcohol. The explanation submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner
was found unsatisfactory. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was initiated.
The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry in accordance with the
prescribed procedure, submitted his report holding that the charges framed
against the appellant/writ petitioner stood proved. Thereafter, a second show
cause notice was issued, and upon consideration of the reply, the disciplinary
authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service by order dated
01.05.2019. The appeal as well as the revision petition preferred by the
appellant/writ petitioner were also dismissed, thereby confirming the order of
dismissal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
3. Mr. R. Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner,
contended that even if the appellant was addicted to alcohol, the employer ought
to have extended medical treatment for such addiction. It was submitted that the
misconduct alleged was not in relation to misappropriation or any other grave or
serious misconduct, and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service
was wholly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.
4. Per contra, Ms. P.J. Anitha, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the
respondents, submitted that although the present dismissal was not on account
of misappropriation, the appellant/writ petitioner had earlier been penalised on
six occasions for similar charges. In such circumstances, the disciplinary
authority was left with no other option but to impose the punishment of
dismissal. It was argued that the punishment was commensurate with the gravity
of the misconduct, and further, the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper
manner. Hence, the order of dismissal cannot be faulted.
5. We have considered the rival submissions advanced on either side and
have carefully perused the material placed on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner had been proceeded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
against on several earlier occasions for similar misconduct and had been
awarded penalties on six different instances. Despite such repeated
punishments, the appellant/writ petitioner once again indulged in similar acts of
indiscipline under the influence of alcohol. The Enquiry Officer, after affording
full opportunity to the appellant/writ petitioner, found the charges to be proved.
Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, upon due
consideration of the enquiry report and the further representation of the
appellant/writ petitioner, came to the conclusion that the appellant, being a
member of an Armed Police Force such as the CISF, had not only tarnished the
image of the CISF Unit at CPT Cochin but also the reputation of the CISF
Organisation as a whole.
7. His past record reveals that he had been awarded eight penalties for
proven misconduct of indiscipline, out of which four related to drunkenness.
Such repeated misconduct clearly establishes that the appellant/writ petitioner is
incorrigible and unwilling to mend himself to become a disciplined member of
the Force. It was rightly observed by the authorities that such conduct is
incompatible with service in a disciplined force like the CISF, where the highest
standards of discipline are of paramount importance. The commission of such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
acts of misconduct renders the appellant/writ petitioner unsuitable to continue in
service. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and
cannot be interfered with.
8. In view of the above discussion, and having regard to the fact that the
enquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with law, and the appellant/writ
petitioner having been earlier penalised on multiple occasions for similar
charges, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
15.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
To
1. The Inspector General
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
Central Industrial Security Force,
South Sector, Head Quarters,
New War Memorial,
Chennai-600009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
South Zone, Head Quarters,
Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar,
Chennai-600090.
3.The Group Commandment,
CISF Group Headquarters,
C-2, Kendriya Bhavan,
Kakkanad,
Cochin-682030.
4.The Deputy Commandant,
Central Industrial Security Force Unit,
Cochin Port Trust,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
15.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
