The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the reduction of pay awarded to a CISF head constable for negligent loss of 32 rounds of ammunition. It held that subsequent recovery did not negate the initial negligence and found the penalty justified.
No order as to cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 7410/2016
Reserved on: 18th August,2017 Date of decision : 6th September,2017
HC SUBEY SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Siddharth, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms.Sangita Rai, SCGC with Mr.Pradeep Tomar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
The petitioner has challenged before us the order dated
21.12.2011 passed by the respondent No.3, Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), imposing a punishment of reduction
of pay (pay scale 5200-20200) by three stages from Rs.10,260/- + 2800/-(G.Pay) to Rs.9150/- + 2800/- (G.Pay) in the time scale for a
WP(C) 7410/2016
Page 1
period of three years with immediate effect. It was further ordered that
the petitioner would not earn any increment during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay.
passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Northern Zone by which his appeal has been dismissed.
CHARGE
“On 05/09/2011 between 1300 hrs and 2100hrs No.854300501, HC/GD, Sube Singh, CISF Unit Samadhi Sthal, Delhi, was detailed in B shift to perform duty with arms at Vijay Ghats and to perform his duty he was issued with 01 SMG (butt no.2, registration no.16006372), 03 magazines and 96 rounds of 9 mm at 1220 hours, after completion of duty, member of force deposited one SMG (butt no.2, registration no.16006372), 03 magazines and 64 rounds of 9 mm in the kot at 2125 hours. Force personnel was personally responsible for safe guarding by keeping in custody, arms and ammunition issued to him for performance of his duty by the kot, and after completion of his duty he ought to have deposited the arms and ammunition in correct numbers and in safe condition in the unit Kot but he did not do so and has been negligent in the safe condition of ammunition and lost 32 rounds of 9 mm.
WP(C) 7410/2016
Page 2
Being a head constable of armed and disciplined force, he has been negligent in keeping arms and ammunition under proper safe guard and lost 32 rounds of 9 mm, shows gross negligence towards his responsibility and duty and indiscipline. Thus he charged.”
culminated in the impugned order dated 21.12.2011 awarding the above mentioned penalty to the petitioner.
of ammunition were later recovered, which fact was ignored by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing punishment and also by the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal. Further there was failure to make sincere effort to trace the missing rounds of ammunition.
WP(C) 7410/2016
Page 3
petitioner of the gross negligence and remissness in misplacing the ammunition at the first stage. Regarding immediate effort made by the respondents to recover the ammunition, the respondents have submitted in their counter affidavit that sincere steps were taken, including registration of FIR. In any case, the assertion is again of no relevance to the charge proved against the petitioner because in case the ammunition was not recovered, the charge would have been different.
WP(C) 7410/2016
Page 4
“11. It is trite that the Tribunal or the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution are not hearing an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the delinquent employee. The jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal or the High Court is a limited one and while exercising the power of the judicial review, they cannot set aside the punishment altogether or impose some other penalty unless they find that there has been a substantial noncompliance with the rules of procedure or a gross violation of rules of natural justice which has caused prejudice to the employee and has resulted in miscarriage of justice or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravamen of the charge.”
the Supreme Court has held that unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. The Court further held that as a member of a disciplined force, deviation from discipline and failure to follow the rules would not normally warrant any leniency.
Page 5
WP(C) 7410/2016
same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to cost.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SANJIV KHANNA, J
SEPTEMBER 06, 2017/vp
WP(C) 7410/2016
Page 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed on a CISF personnel for negligent loss of ammunition.
Whether the subsequent recovery of lost ammunition absolves the petitioner of the charge of gross negligence.
Whether the penalty imposed for misplacing 32 rounds of ammunition is shockingly disproportionate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Government of India and Anr. v. George PhilipExplained¶38
(2006) 13 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Diler SinghExplained¶39
(2016) 13 SCC 71 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HC Sube Singh
Union of India
Sanjiv Khanna
Navin Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
