[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Karambir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 6 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 25982 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Karambir Singh .... Petitioner
-versus-
Union of India & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Ms. Sagarika Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India
along with
Ms. S. Patra, Central Govt. Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 21.01.2026 & Date of Judgment: 06.03.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
The present writ petition has been filed inter alia
challenging the order of punishment passed against the Petitioner in a
// 2 //
proceeding initiated under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 vide
charge memo dtd.12.01.2020.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
Petitioner while in service as Head Constable under CISF and posted
at Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, the proceeding in question was
initiated against him vide charge memo dtd.12.01.2020. In the said
proceeding, Petitioner filed his reply and also participated in the
enquiry. But the enquiry officer without conducting the enquiry in
accordance with law, held the Petitioner guilty of the charges vide his
report dt.06.06.2020 under Annexure-3. Petitioner on being
communicated with the report along with the show-cause, submitted
his reply on 17.06.2020. But without proper appreciation of the same,
Petitioner was imposed with the following punishment vide order
dtd.30.06.2020:-
"Reduction of pay by 3 stages from Rs.41,600/- to Rs. 38,100/-
for a period of 3 years in the pay level (matrix) 05 with
immediate effect. It is further directed that he will not earn
increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry
of period reduction will have the effect on postponing his
future increment of pay."
// 3 //
2.1. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment passed
by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4 on 30.06.2020,
Petitioner moved the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 3. But the
appellate authority without proper appreciation of the grounds of
appeal, rejected the same by upholding the order of punishment vide
order dtd.28.08.2020 under Annexure-4. Even though Petitioner
preferred a revision under Anneure-5, but the revisional authority as
like the appellate authority without proper appreciation of the grounds
taken in the revision, rejected the same vide order dtd.20.04.2021
under Annexure-1.
2.2. While assailing the impugned order of punishment so passed by
Opp. Party No. 4 on 30.04.2020, confirmed by the appellate authority-
Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.28.08.2020 and further confirmed by
the revisional authority-Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.20.04.2021
under Annexure-1, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that the proceeding has been disposed of without following
the principle of natural justice and the disciplinary authority held the
Petitioner guilty of the charges with imposition of the punishment
solely relying on the statement of one B.C. Majhi, who was arrested
pursuant to registration of Tangarpali P.S. Case No. 01 of 2020
// 4 //
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 06 of 2020 pending before the learned
JMFC, Rural Rourkela.
2.3. It is also contended that if the CCTV footage of the entire incident
will be looked into by this Court, Petitioner will not be held guilty at
all and the punishment so imposed in the proceeding will not hold
good. It is further contended that even though Petitioner made an
application to get the CCTV footage of the alleged incident, but the
same was never provided to him. It is further contended that since the
CCTV footage was taken into consideration by the enquiry officer
without providing a copy thereof to the Petitioner, such amounts to
non-compliance of the provisions contained under Rule 36(16) of the
2001 Rules.
2.4. It is also contended that since the F.I.R. was lodged after around 8
days of the alleged occurrence and thereafter the proceeding with the
charge memo dtd.12.01.2020 was initiated, taking into account the
stand taken by the Petitioner in his reply and the materials available
during enquiry, Petitioner could not have been held guilty of the
charges by the enquiry officer and consequentially by the disciplinary
authority with imposition of the punishment vide order
dtd.30.06.2020.
// 5 //
2.5. It is contended that since principle of natural justice was never
followed and on the face of the application made by the Petitioner, he
was not provided with the CCTV footage, which was relied on by the
enquiry officer, imposition of the punishment vide order
dtd.30.06.2020 of Opp. Party No. 4 so confirmed by the appellate
authority vide order dtd.28.08.2020 under Annexure-4 and by the
revisional authority vide order dtd.20.04.2021 under Annexure-1
needs interference of this Court. In support of his submissions,
reliance was placed to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court:
(i) Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2008) 3
SCC 484
(ii) State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal & Anr., (1998) 6
SCC 651
(iii) Chandrama Tewar Vs. Union of India (Through
General Manager, Eastern Railways), 1987 SCC 518
(iv) Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4
SCC 589
(v) State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary,
Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow vs. Ram
Prakash Singh, 2925 SCC OnLine SC 891
// 6 //
2.6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 17 & 18 of the Judgment in the case
of Moni Shankar has held as follows:-
"17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one.
Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not
applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural
justice are required to be complied with. The courts
exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as
to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the
part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has
been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been
excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on
evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The
Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on
the premise that the evidence adduced by the Department,
even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety,
meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely,
preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of
the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the
Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on
record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to
the doctrine of proportionality. (See State of U.P. v. Sheo
Shanker Lal Srivastava [(2006) 3 SCC 276 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 521] and Coimbatore District Central Coop.
Bank v. Employees Assn. [(2007) 4 SCC 669 : (2007) 2 SCC
(L&S) 68] )
18. We must also place on record that on certain aspects
even judicial review of fact is permissible. (E v. Secy. of State
for the Home Deptt. [2004 QB 1044 : (2004) 2 WLR 1351
(CA)] )"
2.7. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 4, 6 & 9 of the judgment
in the case of Shatrughan Lal has held as follows:-
"4. Now, one of the principles of natural justice is that a
person against whom an action is proposed to be taken has to
be given an opportunity of hearing. This opportunity has to
be an effective opportunity and not a mere pretence. In
departmental proceedings where charge-sheet is issued and
the documents which are proposed to be utilised against that
person are indicated in the charge-sheet but copies thereof
are not supplied to him in spite of his request, and he is, at
// 7 //
the same time, called upon to submit his reply, it cannot be
said that an effective opportunity to defend was provided to
him. (See: Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India [1987 Supp
SCC 518 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 226 : (1987) 5 ATC 369 : AIR
1988 SC 117] ; Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India [(1986)
3 SCC 229 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 502 : (1986) 1 ATC 176 : AIR
1986 SC 2118] ; State of U.P. v. Mohd. Sharif [(1982) 2 SCC
376 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 253 : AIR 1982 SC 937] .)
xxx xxx xxx
6. Preliminary enquiry which is conducted invariably on the
back of the delinquent employee may often constitute the
whole basis of the charge-sheet. Before a person is,
therefore, called upon to submit his reply to the charge-sheet,
he must, on a request made by him in that behalf, be supplied
the copies of the statements of witnesses recorded during the
preliminary enquiry particularly if those witnesses are
proposed to be examined at the departmental trial. This
principle was reiterated in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of
India [(1986) 3 SCC 229 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 502 : (1986) 1
ATC 176 : AIR 1986 SC 2118] wherein it was also laid down
that this lapse would vitiate the departmental proceedings
unless it was shown and established as a fact that non-supply
of copies of those documents had not caused any prejudice to
the delinquent in his defence.
xxx xxx xxx
9. This paragraph of the written statement contains an
admission of the appellant that copies of the documents
specified in the charge-sheet were not supplied to the
respondent as the respondent had every right to inspect them
at any time. This assertion clearly indicates that although it is
admitted that the copies of the documents were not supplied
to the respondent and although he had the right to inspect
those documents, neither were the copies given to him nor
were the records made available to him for inspection. If the
appellant did not intend to give the copies of the documents
to the respondent, it should have been indicated to the
respondent in writing that he may inspect those documents.
Merely saying that the respondent could have inspected the
documents at any time is not enough. He has to be informed
that the documents of which the copies were asked for by him
may be inspected. The access to record must be assured to
him."
// 8 //
2.8. Hon'ble Apex Court, in Para 4 & 9 of the judgment in the case of
Chandrama Tewari has held as follows:-
"4. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant and we have
further considered the aforesaid authorities referred to by the
learned counsel for the appellant but we do not find any merit
in the appellant's submissions to justify interference with the
High Court's judgment. Article 311 of the Constitution
requires that reasonable opportunity of defence must be
afforded to a government servant before he is awarded major
punishment of dismissal. It further contemplates that
disciplinary enquiry must be held in accordance with the
rules in a just and fair manner. The procedure at the enquiry
must be consistent with the principles of natural justice.
Principles of natural justice require that the copy of the
document if any relied upon against the party charged should
be given to him and he should be afforded opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses and to produce his own
witnesses in his defence. If findings are recorded against the
government servant placing reliance on a document which
may not have been disclosed to him or the copy whereof may
not have been supplied to him during the enquiry when
demanded, that would contravene principles of natural
justice rendering the enquiry, and the consequential order of
punishment illegal and void. These principles are well settled
by a catena of decisions of this Court. We need not refer to
them. However, it is not necessary that each and every
document must be supplied to the delinquent government
servant facing the charges, instead only material and
relevant documents are necessary to be supplied to him. If a
document even though mentioned in the memo of charges is
not relevant to the charges or if it is not referred to or relied
upon by the enquiry officer or the punishing authority in
holding the charges proved against the government servant,
no exception can be taken to the validity of the proceedings
or the order. If the document is not used against the party
charged the ground of violation of principles of natural
justice cannot successfully be raised. The violation of
principles of natural justice arises only when a document,
copy of which may not have been supplied to the party
charged when demanded is used in recording finding of guilt
against him. On a careful consideration of the authorities
cited on behalf of the appellant we find that the obligation to
supply copies of a document is confined only to material and
relevant documents and the enquiry would be vitiated only if
// 9 //
the non-supply of material and relevant documents when
demanded may have caused prejudice to the delinquent
officer.
xxx xxx xxx
9. It is now well settled that if copies of relevant and material
documents including the statement of witnesses recorded in
the preliminary enquiry or during investigation are not
supplied to the delinquent officer facing the enquiry and if
such documents are relied in holding the charges framed
against the officer, the enquiry would be vitiated for the
violation of principles of natural justice. Similarly, if the
statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation of a
criminal case or in the preliminary enquiry is not supplied to
the delinquent officer that would amount to denial of
opportunity of effective cross-examination. It is difficult to
comprehend exhaustively the facts and circumstances which
may lead to violation of principles of natural justice or denial
of reasonable opportunity of defence. This question must be
determined on the facts and circumstances of each case.
While considering this question it has to be borne in mind
that a delinquent officer is entitled to have copies of material
and relevant documents only which may include the copy of
statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation or
preliminary enquiry or the copy of any other document which
may have been relied on in support of the charges. If a
document has no bearing on the charges or if it is not relied
on by the enquiry officer to support the charges, or if such
document or material was not necessary for the cross-
examination of witnesses during the enquiry, the officer
cannot insist upon the supply of copies of such documents, as
the absence of copy of such document will not prejudice the
delinquent officer. The decision of the question whether a
document is material or not will depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case."
2.9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 5 of the judgment in the case of S.K.
Kapoor has held as follows:-
"5. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any
material is to be relied upon in departmental proceedings, a
copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the charge-
sheeted employee so that he may have a chance to rebut the
same."
// 10 //
2.10. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 14 & 33 of the judgment in the case
of Ram Prakash Singh has held as follows:-
"14. What follows from a conjoint reading of the above two
decisions is and what applies here is that, 'materials brought
on record by the parties' (to which consideration in the
enquiry ought to be confined) mean only such materials can
be considered which are brought on record in a manner
known to law. Such materials can then be considered legal
evidence, which can be acted upon. Though the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not strictly applicable to
departmental enquiries, which are not judicial proceedings,
nevertheless, the principles flowing therefrom can be applied
in specific cases. Evidence tendered by witnesses must be
recorded in the presence of the delinquent employee, he
should be given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
and no document should be relied on by the prosecution
without giving copy thereof to the delinquent - all these basic
principles of fair play have their root in such Act. In such
light, the documents referred to in the list of documents
forming part of the annexures to the chargesheet, on which
the department seeks to rely in the enquiry, cannot be treated
as legal evidence worthy of forming the basis for a finding of
guilt if the contents of such documents are not spoken to by
persons competent to speak about them. A document does not
prove itself. In the enquiry, therefore, the contents of the
relied-on documents have to be proved by examining a
witness having knowledge of the contents of such document
and who can depose as regards its authenticity. In the present
case, no such exercise was undertaken by producing any
witness.
xxx xxx xxx
33. Resting on the aforesaid reasoning, the answer to the
basic question (majority view) in B. Karunakar (supra) is
found in paragraph 29 reading as follows:
"29. Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer
is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has
a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report before
the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with
regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard
to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the
// 11 //
employee's right to defend himself against the charges
levelled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer's report
before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the
charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the
employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the
principles of natural justice.""
3. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI on the other hand made his
submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed.
Learned DSGI contended that Petitioner while in duty as a Head
Constable in RSP Rourkela on 25.12.2019, Petitioner was posted in
the Traffic Gate in day shift (08.00 hours to 19.30 hours) of Rourkela
Steel Plant, Rourkela to ensure proper access, control, security and
physical checking of vehicles. But during his duty period, two
vehicles entered the plant premises at about 11.44 hours without
physical checking and documentation.
3.1. Those vehicles when tried to load slab with the help of an
unidentified crane operator and the same came to the knowledge of the
official of the Rourkela Steel Plant, an F.I.R. was lodged by the
Inspector, CISF Unit RSP, against the driver and helper of both the
vehicles giving rise to Tangarpali P.S. Case No. 01 of 2020
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 06 of 2020. Because of such
negligence in duty on 25.12.2019, Petitioner was placed under
// 12 //
suspension vide order dtd.26.12.2019 and the proceeding was initiated
vide charge memo dtd.12.01.2020 under Rule 36 of the 2001 Rules.
3.2. Learned DSGI also contended that in the proceeding in question,
Petitioner submitted his reply on 19.01.2020 by denying all the
charges. But the enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry,
submitted the report to the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4 on
06.06.2020 by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges.
3.3. It is contended that after receipt of the enquiry report, Petitioner
was issued with the show-cause and after filing of the reply to the
show-cause, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment vide
order dtd.30.06.2020. Even though Petitioner moved the appellate
authority as well as the revisional authority by filing the appeal and
revision against such order of punishment, but such appeal and
revision filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority
vide order under Annexure-4 and by the revisional authority vide
order under Annexure-1.
3.4. It is contended that since the order of punishment so passed
against the Petitioner by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed
by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority, in view of
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India
// 13 //
& Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran, no interference is called for. It is
contended that Hon'ble Apex Court in the said reported decision held
that in disciplinary proceeding matters, the High Court is not and
cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in
exercise of the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High
Court only can see whether:-
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority,
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed
in that behalf,
c. there is violation of the principle of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a
fair conclusion.
3.5. View expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Curt in the aforesaid
reported decision reads as follows:-
"Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to
note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in
the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence
before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was
accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second
court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers
// 14 //
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not
venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court
can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. behalf; the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that
C. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence
and merits of the case;
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary
and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have
arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
3.6. It is also contended that since because of the negligence on the
part of the Petitioner while in duty on 25.12.2019, two vehicles
entered into the plant premises and loaded slab without physical
// 15 //
checking and documentation, the said misconduct of the Petitioner is
not only serious but also violative of the conduct of service Rules. It is
also contended that Petitioner all through in the proceeding was
provided with opportunity of hearing and there is no allegation that
principle of natural justice has not been followed. Making all these
submissions, learned DSGI contended that no illegality or irregularity
has been committed by the Opp. Parties in imposing the punishment in
the proceeding initiated on 12.01.2020.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner
while being posted as Head Constable in RSP Rourkela, he was on
duty in the morning shift from 8.00 hours to 19.30 hours on
25.12.2019. With the allegation that two vehicles entered the plant
premises at about 11.34 hours without physical checking and
documentation, F.I.R. was lodged by the Inspector, CISF Unit, RSP
Rourkela against the driver and helper of both the vehicles giving rise
to Tangarpali P.S. Case No. 01 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 06 of 2020 in the file of learned JMFC, Rural Rourkela. Because
of such negligence in duty, Petitioner was placed under suspension
// 16 //
vide order dtd.26.12.2019 and thereafter the proceeding was initiated
vide charge memo dtd.12.01.2020 under Annexure-1/A.
4.1 Petitioner filed his reply to the charges on 19.01.2020 and the
enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry, submitted the report
under Annexure-1/B. Finding of the enquiry officer reads as follows:-
"In the above case after taking into consideration the
statement of prosecution witness, court witness and defense
statement as well as prosecution exhibit produced by PWs and
circumstantial evidence prevailed at the time, the Inquiry Officer
came into conclusion that article of charge -1 framed against the
Charged Official HC(GD) Karambir Singh (U / S) of CISF Unit
RSP Rourkela is established from the deposition of PW-1, 2, 3, 4,
6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 & 18 and documentary exhibits
produced as PW-1/Exh.2, 3, 4 & 5, PW-2/Exh.2 & 3, PW-3/Exh.1,
2 & 3, PW-6/Exh.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, PW-8/Exh.1 &2, PW-13/Exh.1,
PW-14/Exh.1 & 2 and PW-17/Exh.1, 2, 3 & 4 that on 25.12.2019
during the operation of traffic gate HC(GD) Karambir Singh (U /
S) was deployed in general shift from 0800 to 1930 hrs at vehicle
entry (physical check) duty post. The said MOF was assigned duty
to check physical verification of the vehicles coming inside RSP
through traffic gate. On 25.12.2019 aforesaid two vehicles
entered inside the plant premises without any physical and
security check and valid document which were caught at new
plate mill weighbridge. The above act on the part of Charged
Official HC(GD) Karambir Singh (U / S) denotes gross
negligence, misconduct and indifference towards his bonafide
duty. Hence, Article of Charge No.1 framed against
// 17 //
No.902335806 HC(GD) Karambir Singh is PROVED beyond any
doubt.
02 With regard to Article of charge no.2 framed against
No.902335806 HC(GD) Karambir Singh (U / S) of CISF Unit
RSP Rourkela it has been established from the deposition of PW-
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 & 17 as well as documentary
evidence/exhibits produced as PW-I/Exh.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, PW-
2/Exh.2, 3 & 4, PW-3/Exh.1, 2 & 3, PW-6/Exh.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6,
PW-8/Exh.1 & 2, PW-13/Exh.1, PW-14/Exh.1 & 2 and PW-
17/Exh.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 that on 25.12.2019 No.902335806 HC(GD)
Karambir Singh (U / S) was deployed in general shift from 0800
hrs to 1930 hrs at traffic gate and he was assigned duty of vehicle
entry (physical check). During his duty 02 vehicles Trailer
bearing Regd. No.CG-04ZE-7285 and Truck bearing Regd.
No.NL-02Q-1336 had got entered in the plant premises through
traffic gate which were caught at new plate mill. The aforesaid
two vehicles was in the process of loading slab from slab yard at
new plate mill inside RSP and HC(GD) Karambir Singh (U / S)
did not check the physical and security as well relevant
documents of the vehicles and with active connivance he involved
in malpractice with an intention to steal the Govt. property. The
above act on the part of HC(GD) Karambir Singh (U/S) shows
act of indiscipline, misconduct, hatching conspiracy and involved
in misappropriation of Govt. property which has tarnish the
image of force. Hence, Article of Charge No.2 framed against
No.902335806 HC(GD) Karambir Singh is PROVED beyond any
iota of doubt.
03. With regard to article of charge No.3 framed against
No.902335806 HC(GD) Karambir Singh (U/S) of CISF Unit RSP
Rourkela vide charge memorandum No.V-15014/02-
20/CISF/L&R/RSP/Karambir Singh/2020/80 dated 12.01.2020 it
// 18 //
has been established from the statement of CW-1 and exhibit
produced by him as CW-1/Exh.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 that after
affording reasonable opportunity the Charged Official HC(GD)
Karambir Singh has failed to amend his conduct and he is having
07 minor penalties in the past. The plea taken by the Charged
Official that his performance has been assessed as outstanding,
the same does not justify the serious act of misconduct committed
by him. Hence, the above episode on the part of Charged Official
denotes act of indiscipline and misconduct which is not expected
from a member of disciplined force. Hence, Article of Charge
No.3 framed against No.902335806 HC(GD) Karambir Singh is
PROVED beyond any iota of doubt."
4.2. On the face of such enquiry report, Petitioner was issued with the
show-cause and after receipt of the reply, Opp. Party No. 4 being the
disciplinary authority while disposing the proceeding, imposed the
punishment vide order dtd.30.06.2020 under Annexure-1/C. Order
passed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4 has been
confirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional
authority vide orders issued under Annexure-4 and 1 respectively.
4.3. This Court after going through the materials available on record,
is of the view that the proceeding has been conducted strictly in
accordance with the provisions contained under Rule 36 of CISF
Rules, 2001 and Petitioner has been provided with due opportunity of
hearing all through. Taking into account the seriousness of the charges
// 19 //
and the decision in the case of P. Gunasekaraan (as cited supra) and
the fact that two of the vehicles entered into plant premises without
proper checking and documentation while Petitioner was on duty on
25.12.2019 and tried to load slabs unauthorisedly, which is not
disputed, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the
impugned order of punishment so passed on 30.06.2020 under
Annexure-1/C, confirmed vide order under Annexure-4 and 1
respectively.
4.4. This Court is unable to accept the contention raised by the
Petitioner that he was prejudiced due to non-supply of the CCTV
footage of the incident. It is also the view of this Court that the
decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
4.5. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order of punishment so passed against the
Petitioner and subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. While
not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment so passed by
Opp. Party No. 4 vide order dt.30.06.2020 and confirmed by the
Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dt.28.08.2020 under
Annexure-4 and by the Revisional Authority-Opp. Party No. 2 vide
// 20 //
order dt.20.04.2021 under Annexure-1, this Court dismiss the writ
petition.
5. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 6th March, 2026/Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
