Patna High Court
The Union Of India vs Deo Narayan Singh on 7 May, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1211 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21188 of 2012
======================================================
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Homes,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Director General (Central Industrial Security Force) C.G.O. Complex, New
Delhi.
3. Inspector General (C.I.S.F.), Eastern Zone Head Office Boring Road, Patna,
Bihar.
4. Deputy Inspector General (C.I.S.F. Unit), B.C.C.L., Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
5. Commandant (C.I.S.F. Unit), B.C.C.L., Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Deo Narayan Singh S/o Shri Surendra Singh, R/o Village- Akbarpur, P.S.-
Paliganj, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bhairaw Nand Sharma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)
Date : 07-05-2025
I.A. no.1 of 2025
1. The instant application has been filed by the
appellant/Union of India praying for condoning the delay of 128
days in filing of the instant appeal.
2. The limitation for filing an appeal against the
judgment impugned dated 25.6.2024 expired on 24.7.2024,
however, the appeal was filed after a delay of 128 days only on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1211 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
2/7
29.11.2024.
3
. It has been submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that on account of illness of the clerk
of the concerned counsel, he was informed that the case had
been finally heard and judgment reserved. The appellant came
to know only on 25.9.2024 that the writ application filed by the
respondent had been allowed. It was thereafter that a
typographical error in the judgment impugned was got corrected
on 2.8.2024 and thereafter the appeal filed.
4. On perusal of the contents of the interlocutory
application, this Court finds that there is no explanation
whatsoever with respect to the delay in filing of the appeal from
25.6.2024 till the same was filed on 29.11.2024.
5. Taking into consideration the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of H.
Guruswamy & Ors. vs. A. Krishnaiah since deceased by Lrs.
[2025 (2) BLJ 69 (SC)], the Court is of the opinion that the
appellant has not made out a case for condonation of delay in
filing of the instant appeal.
LPA no.1211 of 2024
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The instant appeal has been preferred by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1211 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
appellant/Union of India against the judgment dated 25.6.2024
passed in CWJC no.21188 of 2012 whereby the learned Single
Judge holding the punishment of dismissal from service to be
too harsh remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority
to impose lesser punishment in the facts and circumstances of
the case and to extend monetary and service benefits to the
respondent/writ petitioner.
8. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent,
a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.)
was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. He was
served with the charge memorandum on 18.9.2010. The charges
levelled against the respondent were to the effect that while he
was posted at duty in the Dahibari workshop from 9 p.m. on
29.7.2010 to 5 a.m. on 30.7.2010, he remained absent till 11
p.m. which showed his negligence, indiscipline and not obeying
the orders of the authority. The second charge was that while
posted for duty as stated above, he left his post at 1 a.m., went to
the loading office and started fighting with the loading clerk
namely Sahdeo Thakur. The third charge was that during his
service period in the past, he had been punished 11 times but he
was not ready to improve.
9. The enquiry officer submitted his report finding
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1211 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
the respondent to be guilty of the charges. On receiving a copy
of the enquiry report, the respondent filed his reply. The
disciplinary authority awarded him the punishment of
"compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity benefits"
vide order dated 5.2.2011. The appeal preferred by the
respondent was rejected on 28/30.6.2011 and the revision
preferred against the order of the appellate authority was also
rejected on 3.11.2011.
10. The respondent challenged the order of
punishment as also the orders passed in appeal and revision in
CWJC no.21188 of 2012 which was allowed by the learned
Single Judge by his judgment dated 25.6.2024. The case of the
respondent was remanded to the disciplinary authority to
reconsider the penalty imposed and for passing an appropriate
order as in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the
punishment of dismissal from service was too harsh. The
disciplinary authority was asked to impose lesser penalty in the
facts of the case.
11. It is against this order that the instant appeal has
been preferred.
12. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing
for the Union of India that the learned Single Judge had erred in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1211 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
allowing the writ application. The learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate that the charges against the respondent was proved in
the duly constituted departmental enquiry. Reliance has been
incorrectly placed on the judgment in CWJC no.10065 of 2013
as the facts of the two cases were different and it was also not
taken into consideration that even in the past, the respondent
had been imposed with 11 penalties and he was not ready to
mend his ways. The order of punishment was not harsh. The
matter being old, it was prayed that the order be set aside and
the appeal be allowed.
13. The appeal was opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the respondent. It was submitted on behalf of the
respondent that neither any preliminary enquiry was held nor
was the respondent served with show cause with respect to the
allegations levelled by Sahdeo Thakur. Even in the past, there
had never been any complaint by the superior authorities against
the respondent of any misconduct. It was submitted that the
punishment of compulsory retirement on the allegation of the
respondent not being present on duty at 1 a.m. on 29.7.2010 was
too harsh. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on
the judgment of this Court in the case of Constable
No.911120653 Hawaldar, G.D. Datta Singh vs. The Union of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1211 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
India & Ors. (CWJC no.10065 of 2013) and on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr.
vs. R.K.Sharma (Civil Appeal no.4059 of 2015).
14. Having gone through the records of the case this
Court is of the opinion that taking into account the contents of
the enquiry report wherein allegation of absenting himself from
his duty post, misbehaving with the loading clerk and his past
service record, the order of punishment of compulsory
retirement with full pension and gratuity benefits was too harsh.
15. The learned Single Judge relying on the
judgments in the case of Amrender Kumar Pandey vs. Union
of India & Ors. [2022 Live Law (SC) 600] as also the judgment
in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors.
[(1995) 6 SCC 749] rightly remanded the matter to the
disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and to
pass appropriate orders imposing lesser penalty.
16. Having gone through the records of the case,
this Court finds no perversity in the judgment of the learned
Single Judge remanding the matter back to the disciplinary
authority to impose lesser punishment on the respondent.
17. In the facts of the case, the Court finds no merit
in the instant appeal nor in the petition filed for condonation of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1211 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
delay.
18. As such, both the application for condonation of
delay in filing of the appeal as also the appeal are dismissed.
( Partha Sarthy, J)
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ): I agree.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 03.03.2025
Uploading Date 07.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
