This writ petition challenged a fine imposed on a CISF Constable for failing to keep his rifle chain tied to his belt during inspection. The Court held that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated under Article 226, found the orders non-pervetsectious, and dismissed the petition.
The petition was dismissed as meritless with no orders as to costs.
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.
$~44.
SOLANKI GIRISH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate
versus
UOI ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC with Mr. Devender Singh, AC/CISF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R % 02.04.2018
W.P.(C)6771/2017 Page 1 of 7
Red Fort, from where he continued to discharge his duties. On 14.08.2015, a Memo was issued to the petitioner with the following charges:-
“Force No.101220158 constable/G.D. Greesh Solanki was appointed on 11.08.2015 in A shift from time 0600 hours to 1300 hours at Battery -6 with weapon for duty. By the Assistant Commandant unit Red Fort Delhi at time about 0740 hours on checking battery 6 duty post it was found that by the member of the force the chain of the rifle was not tide with the belt and the chain was wrapped with the rifle. Even when by the senior officers clear order has been given that always the chain of the weapon as they have been taught in that manner shall be tied with their belt.”
“3. That in the reply of the memo/charge sheet the above force member had shown that on 11.08.2015 at time 06:00 hours to 13:00 hours he was posted in first shift on duty in battery-6 at time about 07:40 hours Assistant Commandant came to my duty place in civil dress doing morning walk. On coming on Assistant Commandant the force member has given him proper respect, but on the contrary by the Assistant Commandant he has pulled the chain of the force member because of which the hook of the belt was open and chain came out. Force member has done the safety of the rifle immediately. Beside this by the force member this has been shown that under rule 37 of CISF rule 2001 in wrong manner by giving memo the discipline action has been taken and the rules and laws has been misused
W.P.(C)6771/2017 Page 2 of 7
and the powers given by the Govt. has been used in wrong manner. The force member is deliberate harassed because of which force member is going through mental harassment.”
“4. The undersigned this matter in the capacity of being competent discipline officer had examined the memo letter No.2549 dated 14.08.2005 issued to the accused forced member, the reply to the memo given by him representation dated 21.08.2015 was examined. On 11.08.2015 the force member was appointed in first shift for duty at battery -6 from time 0600 hrs to 1300 hours then at time about 07:40 hours by assistant commandant sudden checking was got done and it was found that by the force member the chain of the weapon was not tied with his belt and the chain of the weapon was tied around the rifle. In this regard the force member had stated that by the Assistant Commandant the chain of the force member has been snatched therefore the hook of the belt was open and chain came out this does not appear to be correct because at the time of posting on the duty in briefing it is told that all the force member will keep their weapon tied in proper manner with the belt which was not done by him in proper manner and the chain of the rifle came out of the belt and any antisocial aliment could have taken advantage of it by the force member in the reply of the charge sheet this has been shown that all this is being done deliberately to harass him because of which his going through mental harassment is completely wrong and baseless by the force member during the duty not tinig his rifle with the belt could have been reason for any kind of unwanted incident and because of 15th August, there was high alert even when in the solider seminar/unit regimental duty and shift briefing at that time clear direction/instruction has been passed that any force member during this duty will keep chain of his rifle tied of his belt but on the contrary by the force member his weapon is not tied is not belt. This kind of act done by the force member can cause any kind of unwanted incident. This kind of act shows
W.P.(C)6771/2017 Page 3 of 7
gross negligence and indiscipline towards his duties and responsibilities. Therefore, against the force member under memo letter No.V-15015/CISF/RED FORT/ANU/SO/G/20152549 dated 14.08.2015 the alleged charges are completely proved.
5. Therefore in the light of the above conclusion and on it basis against the accused force member due to finding of the alleged charges I in this matter in the capacity of being competent disciplinary officer using the powers provided in rule 32 schedule -1 of CISF rule 2001 I am passing the order of punishment two pay fine equivalent to 01 (one day) salary to force member K101225158 constable /GD Grees Solanky.”
“5. That after doing comparative examination and comparison of all the documentary evidence and facts available on the file and the argument presented by the petitioner, this is found that force No.101220158, constable/G.D. Girish Solanki was posted on 11.08.2015 in A shift from 06:00 hours to 13:00 hours at
W.P.(C)6771/2017 Page 4 of 7
battery-6 with weapon for duty. By the Assistant Commandant the force Delhi at time about 06:00 hours battery 06 duty post was checked and on checking by the force member the chain of the rifle was not tied of the belt and chain was wrapped around the rifle. The petitioner has mainly pointed out in special manner contradiction in detail of charges shown in Rojnamcha serial No.486 dated 11.08.2015 and charge sheet, final order and order in appeal and some typing mistake in order in appeal in his petition. Even when he was aware that he was posted in sensitive unit like Redfort and on 15th August, in redfort due to special function of independence day high alert was declared even then the force member has committed negligence with his weapon and had made allegation on checking officer and senior commandant. It was duty of the petitioner that he should have tied the chain of the weapon with the belt in the manner teach to him and he should have perform his duty with vigilance but he has not done so. The petitioner with his revision petition has not put any such fact which he prove that he is innocent.
6. Therefore by the undersigned using the power given by rule 54 of CISF regulations 2001 I reject on merits the revision petition dated 26.11.2015 file by the petitioner and I keep intact the punishment as it is given to the force No.1011220158 constable/G.D. Girish Solanki CISF unit redfort, Delhi by the disciplinary officer vide final order No.D15015/CISF/Redfort/ANU/SOG/2015-2718 dated 26.08.2015.”
issued to the petitioner only mentioned that the chain of the petitioner’s rifle was not tied with his belt and the said chain was wrapped with the rifle. He submits that no mention was made in the Memo with regard to the two buttons of the petitioner’s shirt remaining unbuttoned.
W.P.(C)6771/2017 Page 6 of 7
petitioner has been let off lightly for the charges levelled against him. The petition is accordingly dismissed as meritless. No orders as to costs.
HIMA KOHLI, J
PRATIBHA RANI, J
APRIL 02, 2018 rkb/ap/na
W.P.(C)6771/2017 Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can adjudicate disputed questions of facts arising from a disciplinary inquiry.
Whether the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary, Appellate, and Revisional Authorities suffer from illegality or arbitrariness.
Solanki Girish
UOI
Hima Kohli
Pratibha Rani
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
