Orissa High Court
Sunil Kumar Digar vs Union Of India & Others .... Opposite ... on 8 November, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7722 of 2018
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Sunil Kumar Digar .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Union of India & Others .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bisikesan Pradhan, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Miss Bijayalaxmi Tripathy, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-07.10.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-08.11.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner asserts his right to fair treatment and
consistent application of disciplinary measures among co-delinquents.
He argues that the CISF authorities' decision to penalize him while
dismissing charges against Constable Banra demonstrates an absence of
fairness and equal treatment.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
(i) The petitioner was appointed to the CISF on 03.07.1989 and was
subsequently posted to various units, including the CISF unit at Tata
Steel Ltd. ("TSL"), Kalinga Nagar, on 21.02.2016.
(ii) On 21.09.2016, the petitioner was assigned to supervise Quick Reaction
Team ("QRT") No. 5 during the 'B' Shift (13:00 to 21:00 hours) for
security duties at the TSL plant.
(iii) Upon completion of their shifts, QRT personnel were required to
deposit their arms and ammunition in accordance with the CISF
Standard Operating Procedure ("SOP"), a process for which the
petitioner was responsible.
(iv) During the arms clearance procedure, Constable Shidio Banra, a
member of QRT-5, inadvertently discharged a round from his service
rifle, an AK-47, by pressing the trigger without detaching the loaded
magazine, an incident that occurred at 21:40 hours on 21.09.2016 inside
the quarter guard of the CISF unit.
(v) The petitioner was charged with negligence in his supervisory role for
failing to ensure that all personnel, including Constable Banra, adhered
to the SOP during the arms deposit procedure. A charge memorandum
was issued to the petitioner on 28.09.2016 under Rule 37 of the CISF
Rules, 2001.
(vi) Following a review of the petitioner's representation/ the Disciplinary
Authority imposed a penalty vide Final Order No. 782, dated
20.10.2016, withholding the petitioner's next increment for two years/
without affecting future increments.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
(vii) The petitioner appealed the penalty to the Commandant, CISF Unit,
Paradip Port Trust, and the Appellate Authority, vide Order No. 8449
dated 28.12.2016, modified the penalty to withholding the next
increment for one year, without affecting future increments.
(viii) The petitioner then filed a revision petition with the Deputy Inspector
General of Police (DIGP), CISF Eastern Zone HQ, Patna, on 28.02.2017.
(ix) The revision petition was rejected on 10.04.2017 as lacking merit. The
petitioner subsequently approached the Calcutta High Court through
W.P. No. 20988 (W) of 2017, which dismissed the petition due to lack of
jurisdiction, stating that jurisdiction rested with the Orissa High Court.
(x) Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner filed the present writ petition,
arguing that he is entitled to fair treatment and equal application of
disciplinary standards, particularly in the light of the fact that no
penalty was imposed on Constable Banra despite his involvement in the
same incident. The petitioner asserts that the penalty imposed on him,
while charges against Constable Banra were dropped, demonstrates
unfairness and unequal treatment by CISF authorities.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner asserted that he followed the SOP for QRT by briefing
personnel on the safe handling of arms and ammunition. He further
claimed to have properly supervised the arms deposition process,
initially briefing the team and then standing in line to deposit his own
rifle.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
(ii) The petitioner argued that Constable Shidio Banra, being a senior and
experienced former Army serviceman, should have been well-versed in
safety protocols. Banra admitted his fault in the accidental discharge of
the weapon but received leniency from the authorities, which the
petitioner found unjust.
(iii) The petitioner contended that, in accordance with Rule 37(2) of the CISF
Rules, 2001, an inquiry should have been conducted to assess whether
the penalty would affect his pension or seniority, a step that was not
taken.
(iv) Additionally, the petitioner argued that the penalty imposed on him
was disproportionate and violated the principle of parity in disciplinary
proceedings. He emphasized that the leniency shown to Constable
Banra, whose charges were dropped, indicated an arbitrary and
unequal application of disciplinary measures.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) It is submitted that the petitioner, as in-charge of QRT-5, failed to
perform his supervisory duties properly, particularly during the arms
and ammunition deposition process. This negligence directly led to the
accidental firing incident involving Constable Banra.
(ii) He further submitted that, as per CISF guidelines, the petitioner was
responsible for debriefing the QRT personnel and ensuring compliance
with all SOP requirements, particularly regarding arms deposition. His
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
failure to enforce these procedures reflects gross negligence and
dereliction of duty.
(iii) It is contended that the disciplinary actions taken, including the initial
penalty and the modified penalty, were commensurate with the
petitioner's negligence. They argue that the penalty imposed was fair/
considering the gravity of the incident and the petitioner's supervisory
role.
He further contended that as a member of the CISF, a disciplined armed
force, the petitioner is bound to follow orders and maintain discipline.
The opposite parties assert that the petitioner has no authority to
question the actions taken against other personnel (such as Constable
Banra, who later retired) as these decisions are based on internal
assessments and legal provisions.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. I have heard the learned counsels for both parties and carefully
examined the documents submitted.
6. It is evident that the petitioner's penalty stemmed from a violation of
his supervisory duties. Before delving into a more thorough analysis of
the case particulars, it is essential to first consider the fundamental
responsibilities of the QRT In-charge with regard to the handling and
deposition of arms and ammunition by QRT personnel, as outlined in
the applicable SOP:
"(i) To ensure proper safety of arms and ammunitions
during duty and take all steps to avoid any kind of
accidental firing, loss/damage to arms and ammunition;
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
(ii) To ensure proper debriefing and deposit of arms and
ammunitions in koteetc;
(iii) During mounting on duty after briefing the personnel
should first collect the arms and perform check weapon drill
under the command of QRT I/c. Then collect empty
magazines and ammunitions. After filling of magazine put
safety selector on 'S' position and proceed for duty;
(iv) After completion of duty, first make the magazine
empty and fill the - ammunitions in cartoons and deposit
ammunitions. Then perform check - weapon drill under
command of QRT I/c and deposit arms;"
7. A review of the aforementioned duties highlights the importance of
implementing thorough precautionary measures during the briefing
process and while overseeing the deposition of arms and ammunition
in the kote, particularly to avert the risk of accidental discharge.
8. The petitioner's failure to adequately perform his supervisory
responsibilities resulted in the disciplinary action taken against him.
The central issue for this Court to resolve is whether the penalty
imposed was commensurate with the petitioner's actions or if it
necessitates judicial examination of the decision-making process of the
disciplinary authorities.
9. Now, it is well established that courts should refrain from interfering
with the factual findings of a departmental inquiry, except in cases
where such findings are manifestly perverse or unsupported by cogent
evidence. However, if there has been a breach of natural justice, non-
compliance with statutory regulations, or malfeasance by the
Disciplinary Authority, the courts are empowered to intervene.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
10. In this regard, a three judge bench of Supreme Court in the case of B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India1 observed as under:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power
of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual
receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion
which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye
of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of
misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is
concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a
competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are
complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are
based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the
power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority
to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules
of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined
therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the
authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives
support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to
hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The
Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act
as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to
arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The
Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the
proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation
of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where
the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or
finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever
reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the
conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make
it appropriate to the facts of each case."
(1995) 6 SCC 749.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
11. In outlining the general principles governing the High Court's exercise
of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in matters of
disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors.
v. P. Gunasekaran2 set forth the following guidelines:
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the
same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to
be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience"
12. In summary, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, as
fact-finding bodies, hold exclusive authority to assess the evidence
presented in a departmental inquiry. If the evidence is found adequate
and reliable, the Disciplinary Authority may impose a punishment
proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. The High Court or
Tribunal, while exercising judicial review, is typically restricted from re-
evaluating this evidence to form its own conclusions on the penalty,
except in instances where the punishment is so excessive in relation to
the misconduct that it shocks the conscience of the reviewing body or is
otherwise legally unsound. In such cases, the Disciplinary or Appellate
(2015) 2 SCC 610.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
Authority may be directed to reconsider the imposed penalty. The High
Court or Tribunal should intervene to modify the punishment directly
only in exceptional circumstances, and with well-articulated reasons.
13. Applying the established judicial standards to this case, it is clear that
the punishment imposed on the petitioner aligns with the severity of his
supervisory lapse, thereby rendering it proportionate to his actions.
14. The disciplinary proceedings adhered to due process: the petitioner was
given the opportunity to respond to the charges, his representation was
considered, and the appellate authority reviewed the penalty,
ultimately reducing its severity. This progression of review and
modification illustrates a fair handling of the petitioner's case/
evidencing both procedural integrity and respect for natural justice
principles. No apparent deviation from lawful or fair practice emerges
that would justify further judicial intervention in the disciplinary
process.
15. The disciplinary action against the petitioner was justified as it
stemmed from a breach of SOP during the arms clearance procedure, a
critical and high-risk process requiring strict adherence to safety
protocols. In paramilitary forces like the CISF, responsibility and
discipline are the cornerstones of operational efficiency and safety.
16. As a supervisory officer, the petitioner bore the essential duty of
ensuring that all personnel under his command, including Constable
Shidio Banra, followed the SOP meticulously to prevent incidents such
as the inadvertent discharge of a firearm. This incident, caused by the
constable's failure to detach the magazine before pulling the trigger/
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
highlights a failure in the supervisory framework, which directly
compromises the safety and discipline within the unit. The issuance of a
charge memorandum under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001, and the
penalty imposed--two years of increment withholding without
affecting future increments--underscore the importance of maintaining
high standards of responsibility and discipline within the CISF. Such
actions are necessary to reinforce accountability, prevent recurrence,
and uphold the integrity and operational readiness of the force.
V. CONCLUSION:
17. In the light of the facts and applicable legal precedents discussed above,
this Writ Petition is dismissed.
18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 8th Nov., 2024/
