Dular Chand Ram Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 14/08/2006, issued by the respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, and the consequent order(s) of the appellate as well as the revisional authorities, affirming such dismissal.

¶34

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was the Head Constable at the CISF unit BRPL, Bongaigaon at the relevant point of time, was issued a charge sheet on 27/02/2006 on the following charges:-

¶35

“ ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I

¶36

"An act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force in that No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram of CISF Unit, BRPL Bongaigaon, while on "C" shift duty at Watch Tower No. 7 from 2100 hrs of 17.12.2005 to 0500 hrs of 18.12.2005 was found sleeping when checked by Insp/Exe M C Deka, Night Round Officer at about 0102 hrs on 18.12.2005. He threatened the Night Round Officer to take him t the Court and tried to intimidate him in performance of duty as well as to manipulate the remark given by NRO about him being found sleeping. This act on the part of No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram tantamount to gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, indiscipline and unbecoming a member of a disciplined Force" Hence the charge.

¶37

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II

¶38

"An act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force in that No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram of CISF Unit, BRPL Bongaigaon, while on "C" shift duty at Watch Tower No. 7 from 2100 hrs of 17.12.2005 to 0500 hrs of 18.12.2005 was found absent from his duty post when checked by Const J.C Kalita at 0258 on 18.12.2005 and by ASI/Exe A S Jha (NRO) at 0301 Hrs on 18.12.2005.Thus HC/GD/D.C Ram left his duty post unattended jeopardising with the security of the sensitive plant located in North East, without information of competent authority. This act on the part of No. 44690068 HC/GD D.C Ram tantamount to gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, indiscipline and unbecoming a member of a disciplined Force" Hence the charge.

¶39

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III

¶40

"An act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force in that No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C

¶41

Page No.# 4/11

¶42

Ram of CISF Unit, BRPL Bongaigaon, left the unit line at about 0600 hrs on 18.12.2005 without any permission or intimation of competent authority and returned back at about 1115 hrs on 18.12.2005 by remaining absent from the unit line from 0600 hrs to 1115 hrs on 18.12.2005 at his own. This act on the part of No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram tantamount to gross misconduct, indiscipline and unbecoming a member of a disciplined Force" Hence the charge.

¶43

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-IV

¶44

"An act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force in that No. 944690068 HC/GD D.C Ram of CISF Unit, BRPL Bongaigaon is not amenable to discipline and has not improved his conduct as expected from a member of discipline. Force, inspite of having been penalized/punished earlier on 13 (thirteen) occasion for his incorrigible habits during his short spell of 12 years service and thus, he is habitual offender and unbecoming a member of a disciplined Force like CISF"

¶45

4. Thereafter, upon the petitioner furnishing his reply, the same not having been found satisfactory, a disciplinary inquiry was constituted, which, after looking into the evidence adduced by the parties, found the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled, and accordingly, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority thereof. The Disciplinary Authority supplied the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report for making representation in his defence, to which the petitioner submitted his representation on 23/07/2006. The Disciplinary Authority, upon consideration of all aspects of the case, representation of the petitioner, and findings of the Inquiry Officer, found the petitioner guilty of charges and awarded the penalty of removal from service vide the final order dated 14/08/2006.

¶46

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the office of the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, which, upon consideration, the Appellate Authority was pleased to dismiss the same by

¶47

Page No.# 5/11

¶48

upholding the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. Against the aforesaid rejection of the appeal, the petitioner filed a revision before the Revisional Authority, which the Revisional Authority, by order dated 08/11/2013, was pleased to dismiss the revision petition by upholding the penalty in question. Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶49

6. Mr. J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Disciplinary Authority has held the petitioner guilty of the charges on the basis of inconsistent evidence, and therefore, the penalty warrants interference from this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. He further submits that though the respondent authorities in its impugned charge memo against charge no. 4 had mentioned that the petitioner earlier on 13 occasions had been penalized, no such record having been submitted before the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority ought not to have held the aforesaid charge proved. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the following decisions of the apex court :-

¶50

(i) State of Andhra Pradesh and others. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao reported in 1963 AIR (SC) 1723.

¶51

(ii) Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Jain reported in 1969 AIR (SC) 983 .

¶52

(iii) M. V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88.

¶53

7. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, he submits that this Court has ample power to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding since the inquiry is vitiated upon being affected by extraneous consideration.

¶54

Page No.# 6/11

¶55

8. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents, submits that the Disciplinary Authority, upon following the procedure prescribed in law and upon giving due opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, having accepted the inquiry report and having awarded the penalty in question, this Court ought not to intervene with the same, as it is not the domain of this Court to sit in appeal against the merit of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. He further submits that the charges being supported by reliable and credible evidence, the weight of the same cannot be reassessed or assessed by this Court while exercising the powers of judicial review. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 391 . He accordingly submits that since the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, this Court shall not re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on evidence.

¶56

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner while he was in service. Pursuant thereto, a charge-sheet was issued and the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry. The aforesaid position is not in dispute. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 14.08.2006. The order of removal was thereafter affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 13.10.2006. It is further apparent that, after nearly seven years, the petitioner preferred a revision petition on 20.09.2013, which came to be rejected by the Revisional Authority by order dated 08.11.2013, affirming the order of removal. Thereafter, after a further lapse of almost five years, the present writ petition was instituted on 24.07.2018.

¶57

Page No.# 7/11

¶58

10. The principal question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the order removing the petitioner from service suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶59

11. It is well settled that while exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit in appeal over findings recorded in a departmental proceeding. The scope of interference is confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process and correcting errors of law, procedural irregularities, violations of the principles of natural justice, or findings which are perverse or unsupported by any evidence. Judicial review is not synonymous with a re-appreciation of evidence on merits.

¶60

12. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India , reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Apex Court held that where the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are based on some evidence, the Court cannot reassess the sufficiency thereof or substitute its own conclusions. Likewise, in Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank , reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583 , it was reiterated that a writ court ought not to act as an appellate forum or undertake a fresh evaluation of the evidence on record. Similarly, in A.G.D. Reddy (supra) , the Apex Court observed that judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is not in the nature of an appeal and that a review on merits is impermissible. The Court is only required to ascertain whether the decision-making process is lawful and whether the findings are supported by some evidence. Once the record discloses the existence of evidence supporting the findings, it is not the function of the Court to reappreciate such evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion.

¶61

Page No.# 8/11

¶62

13. Bearing the aforesaid limitations in mind, this Court proceeds to examine the record of the departmental proceeding.

¶63

14. The materials on record reveal that while the petitioner was detailed for “C” shift duty at Watch Tower No. 7 from 2100 hours on 17.12.2005 to 0500 hours on 18.12.2005, he was found sleeping on the floor of the watch tower when checked by the Night Round Officer at about 0102 hours on 18.12.2005. The record further indicates that when the Night Round Officer proceeded to record the sleeping remark in the Beat Book, the petitioner threatened him and attempted to intimidate him in the discharge of his official duties. The allegation also includes an attempt on the part of the petitioner to manipulate the remarks recorded by the Night Round Officer. Such conduct, if established, undoubtedly constitutes serious misconduct in a disciplined force such as the CISF. The records further disclose that the petitioner left the unit lines at about 0600 hours on 18.12.2005 and remained absent until 1115 hours without permission or intimation to the competent authority.

¶64

15. Upon consideration of the inquiry report and the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced during the proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority recorded detailed findings holding all four Articles of Charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner was indeed found sleeping while on sentry duty, had threatened the Night Round Officer when the sleeping remark was recorded, had attempted to manipulate the relevant records, had absented himself from his duty post during duty hours, and had thereafter remained absent from the unit lines without authorization. The authority further recorded that the petitioner had previously been penalized on thirteen occasions during his service career, thereby establishing a pattern of indiscipline and

¶65

Page No.# 9/11

¶66

incorrigibility.

¶67

16. Upon perusal of the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, this Court is unable to hold that the conclusions arrived at are unsupported by evidence. On the contrary, the findings are founded upon the testimony of several witnesses as well as contemporaneous documentary records produced during the inquiry. Whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the conclusions reached is not a matter that falls within the scope of judicial review. The Appellate Authority independently examined the materials and, upon reappreciation thereof, concurred with the conclusions of the Disciplinary Authority. No infirmity is discernible in such exercise.

¶68

17. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the finding regarding his earlier punishments could not have been relied upon in the absence of formal proof of the relevant records also does not merit acceptance. The evidence of PW-9, Shri Ashish Mukherjee, who was then serving as Incharge of the Documents Section, clearly establishes that, as per the service records of the petitioner, he had been awarded punishment on thirteen previous occasions for various acts of misconduct during his relatively short tenure of service.

¶69

18. Significantly, although an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine PW-9, the same was declined. Consequently, the testimony of PW-9 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to contend, at this stage, that the earlier punishments were not proved. Once evidence regarding the said fact was adduced and remained uncontroverted, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in taking the

¶70

Page No.# 10/11

¶71

same into consideration. Moreover, the existence of the earlier punishments was a matter within the knowledge of the petitioner and was never effectively disputed during the inquiry proceedings.

¶72

19. This brings the Court to the question of proportionality of the punishment imposed. The records reveal that both the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority examined whether the penalty imposed was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct proved against the petitioner. The Appellate Authority specifically observed that the misconduct had a direct bearing upon discipline and morale within the force and that the petitioner had failed to improve despite having been penalized on thirteen earlier occasions.

¶73

20. The Revisional Authority likewise considered the nature of the misconduct and observed that sleeping while on sentry duty in an insurgency-prone area, misbehaviour towards a superior officer, and unauthorised absence from the duty post and unit lines by a member of a uniformed armed force cannot be treated as minor infractions. The Revisional Authority concluded that the misconduct was grave, subversive of discipline, and that the penalty of removal from service was commensurate with the proved charges. The Revisional Authority further found that the departmental inquiry had been conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and that the principles of natural justice had been duly observed.

¶74

21. Having considered the nature of the charges proved against the petitioner, the evidence on record, and the fact that the petitioner had earlier been penalized on thirteen occasions for acts of indiscipline, this Court is unable to hold that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate

¶75

Page No.# 11/11

¶76

so as to warrant interference in exercise of judicial review. A member of a disciplined force entrusted with the security of a sensitive installation is expected to maintain the highest standards of vigilance, discipline and conduct. The petitioner having repeatedly failed to adhere to such standards despite several earlier opportunities for correction, no ground is made out for interference with the order of punishment. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶77

22. Resultantly, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and is, therefore dismissed.

¶78

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶79

JUDGE

¶80

Comparing Assistant

Dular Chand Ram v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dular Chand Ram v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipon Narzary and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Asssam and 4 Ors.

Abidur Rahman Sheikh (Sk) Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Omar Ali and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sudarshana Chakraborty Vs Central Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Bitumix India LLP Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sazia Ahmed and 4 Ors.