Orissa High Court
Union Of India & Others vs Jagan Jally on 23 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1746 of 2022
Union of India & Others .... Appellants
Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Senior Panel Counsel
-versus-
Jagan Jally .... Respondent
Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN
ORDER
23.02.2023
Order No.
01. I.A. No. 4074 of 2022
1. For the reasons stated therein, the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
2. The I.A. is disposed of.
W.A. No.1746 of 2022
3. The challenge in the present appeal by the Union of India is to a
judgment dated 1st August, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
allowing W.P.(C) No.13495 of 2019 filed by the Respondent.
4. The Respondent joined the CISF as Constable on 8th March,
2010. He was posted in the CISF Unit, Mumbai Port Trust and later
deputed to work at a company in Jamnagar. On the allegation that he
was in a relationship with a woman which continued for six years
and he breached the assurance given to her of marriage, disciplinary
enquiry was started against him on the complaint of the said woman.
The Inquiry Officer returned the finding that the charge was proved.
The learned Single Judge on examining the proceedings of the
enquiry, and the statements recorded therein, agreed with the counsel
for the Respondent that even if the allegation were accepted that they
related to the person life of the Respondent and there was nothing on
record to show that it had affected his discharge of duties as
disciplined personnel of the CISF.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties, the Court is unable
to find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge
in coming to the above conclusion.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellants drew the attention of the
Court to Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and in particular Rule
3(1)(3) (Conduct unbecoming of a government servant) and Rule
3(1)(6) (the requirement to maintain high ethical standards and
honesty) and posed the question whether the subject matter of
disciplinary enquiry would attract the above provisions.
7. The Court is of the view that the burden on the Appellants, rather
the authority to show that such a conduct highlighted the above
requirement. Ultimately, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge,
since the conduct is in the private domain, it will have to be shown
that this has affected the discharge in duty by the Respondent. In the
facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court is unable to
disagree with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge
that the conduct of the Respondent was not such as to attract the
above provisions.
8. No grounds have been made out for interference with the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
9. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M. S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
