K Dharmappa Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

L.P.A No. 105 of 2023

K. Dharmappa (CISF No.913480032 Head Constable/GD), aged about 55 years, s/o late Kariya Naik, r/o CISF Camp, DOCP, PO-Barakar, PSBarakar, District-East Burdwan (WB) ...…… Petitioner / Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, C.G.O. Complex, P.O. and P.S. Lodhi Road, District New Delhi-110003.

¶7

The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), having its Office at C.G.O. Complex, P.O. and P.S. Lodhi Road, District New Delhi110003.

¶8

The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Eastern Zone, Ranchi, P.O. Tiril, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi-824 004.

¶9

Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Eastern Sector Head Quarter, P.O. Boring Road, P.S. Patliputra, District Patna-15 (Bihar).

¶10

The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), C.I.S.F. Unit, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, P.O. Chandrapura, P.S. Chandrapura, District-Bokaro.

¶11

Inspector, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), C.I.S.F. Unit, Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, P.O. Chandrapura, P.S. Chandrapura, District-Bokaro. …. ... Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶13

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶14

For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate Ms. Diksha Divedi, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl.SGI Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, AC to ASGI ---------

¶15

17^th January 2024

¶16

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.

¶17

The appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of W.P(S) No.176 of 2021.

¶18

Before the writ Court, the punishment order dated 20^th June 2019 and the orders passed by the appellate authority on 28^th September 2019 and the revisional authority on 14^th February 2020 were put to challenge.

¶19

The writ Court referred to the judgment in “Lucknow Kshetriya

¶20

2 L.P.A No.105 of 2023

¶21

Gramin Bank & Anr. v. Rajendra Singh” (2013) 12 SCC 372 to fortify its prima facie opinion that no interference is required with the punishment order.

¶22

The writ Court also referred to the instructions issued vide Office Order dated 30^th October 2018 under which the bachelors under the CISF are restrained from visiting the family complex during evening and

¶23

night hrs.

¶24

The writ Court has held as under:

¶25

“8. While going through the records, I find that there is a specific office Order dated 30.10.2018 prohibiting bachelor CISF, Personnel visiting family complexes during evening/night hours one reason or another. It has also been specified in the order that deviation of the same will be viewed seriously and Disciplinary action will be initiated. It is necessary to quote office order herein below:

¶26

“It has come to the notice of the undersigned that some bachelor CISF personnel are visiting to CISF family complex during evening/night hours showing one reason or another. To maintain a healthy environment in the Unit and to prevent any indiscipline/untoward incident, it is hereby directed that no bachelor CISF personnel will visit family quarters during evening/night hours at CISF family complex without the permission of RI/AC/Plant/Township. Any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously and appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated against the defaulters. Directed for strict compliance.”

¶27

Admittedly, petitioner entered the family complex violating the said office order. Thus the commission of the act is itself a misconduct. Further the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct based on evidence. There is no flaw in the inquiry process. Further the punishment which has been imposed cannot be said to be excessive or harsh which warrants interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, I find no merit in this writ application. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.”

¶28

Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complaint made by Anita Kumari who is the daughter of a colleague of the appellant was materially different from the imputation of allegation in the charge memo.

¶29

On the allegation that the appellant visited his colleague constable P.C Oraon on 13^th March 2019 at about 22 hrs. and shouted and misbehaved with the daughter of his colleague, a charge memo was served upon him on 26^th March 2019. To prove the aforementioned charge, nine witnesses were examined in the domestic inquiry. The respondents also laid in evidence as many as eight documents and the inquiry proceedings were

¶30

3 L.P.A No.105 of 2023

¶31

held between 4^th April 2019 to 9^th May 2019. As the inquiry report would reveal, the appellant was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself and he cross-examined the witnesses produced by the department in the domestic inquiry which was conducted over seventeen sittings. The inquiry report elaborately referred to the statement of Anita Kumari and her father P.C Oraon. The defence of the appellant has also been considered by the inquiring officer and on a consideration of the materials laid in the domestic inquiry against the appellant the inquiring officer returned a finding that the charge against him was proved.

¶32

The appellant took a defence that on 13^th March 2019 while leaving for treatment of an injury he handed over the keys of the Training/Library to his colleague P.C Oraon. He has also stated that GD Indrajit informed him around 20:15 hrs. in the entertainment room that he was not able to find the keys and around 21:40 hrs. he also started searching for the keys. According to the appellant, in the aforementioned circumstances, he recollected that he had handed over the keys to his colleague P.C Oraon and therefore visited his house in the night. The sequence of events put forth by the appellant in his defence prima facie does not inspire the confidence and the inquiring office rightly did not accept his defence.

¶33

The appellant who took a defence that around 17:00 hrs. he handed over the keys to P.C Oraon could not have forgotten this fact within 3-4 hrs. when his colleague GD Indrajit approached him in the entertainment room. As noticed above, the inquiring officer found the imputation in the charge memo supported by the witnesses examined in the domestic inquiry and therefore the writ Court rightly refused to interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiring officer. This is by now well-settled that the writ Court shall not interfere in a matter where the departmental authority has taken a decision against the delinquent government employee if there is some evidence on the basis of which the decision has been taken. Indeed, the writ Court shall not interfere with the findings of fact recorded in a properly constituted departmental inquiry. As regards the quantum of punishment, this is well remembered that except in exceptional circumstances where the penalty imposed upon the delinquent

¶34

4 L.P.A No.105 of 2023

¶35

government employee is found so disproportionate to the charge proved that it shocks the conscience of the Court the writ Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In “Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd. v. Hariprasad Drupadrao Jadhao” (2006) 3 SCC 690 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the issue regarding the quantum of punishment shall fall within the exclusive domain of the departmental authority.

¶36

For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the writ Court’s order dated 6^th December 2022 and, accordingly, L.P.A No.105 of 2023 is dismissed.

¶37

(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)

¶38

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶39

sudhir /NAFR

K Dharmappa v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Dharmappa v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deep Sunder Kumar Alias Dip Sunder Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabha Energy Private Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Palkhiwala Vishal Gautambhai Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax

Sri Jitendra Deo Sinha Vs Shambhu Nath Sahay

Padma Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand

Atibir Industries Company Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Chiranjive Kumar Chourasia Vs Union of India through the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)