Dinesh Mathur Vs the Union of India through Home Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

¶1

2026:JHHC:4035

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1767 of 2023

¶3

Dinesh Mathur, S/o Shri Balak Ram, R/o Village Marhoon, P.O Jakh, P.S Vijaypur, District Samba. (Jammu and Kashmir)

¶4

....Petitioner(s).

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India, through Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi At & P.O.- North Block, Cabinet Secretariat Raisina Hill, P.S. & DISTRICT- New Delhi

¶7

The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force; Office at CGO Complex, Block No.1, Lodi Road, P.O.+ P.S.- LODHI ROAD & DISTRICT- New Delhi

¶8

The Special Director General, Central Zone, CRPF; OFFICE AT Salt-lake, Sector-III, P.O. + P.S.- SALTLAKE & DISTRICTKolkatta (WB)

¶9

The Inspector General, CRPF, Jharkhand Sector; OFFICE ATTini Ashram, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S.- DHURWA & DISTRICT- Ranchi

¶10

The Deputy Inspector General, Range Muzaffarpur; OFFICE ATJhaphan, P.O. + P.S. + DISTRICT- Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

¶11

The Commandant 190 Bn., CRPF, Chatra; OFFICE Near Chatra College, P.O. + P.S. & DISTRICT — CHATRA

¶12

…Respondent(s).

¶13

¶14

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Asfia Sultana, Advocate : Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate : Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate For the Resp-UOI : Mr. Radha Kishan Gupta, Advocate : Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey, C.G.C

¶17

07/ 11.02.2026 : By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶18

i. For quashing the impugned order (Annexure-9) dt. 31.01.2020, passed by Respondent no.6, Commandant-190 Battalion, CRPF, Chatra whereby & whereunder punishment of removal from the post of Constable, CRPF has been imposed in Departmental Proceedings.

¶19

ii. For quashing of the order dt.9.04.2020 {Annexure 10(1)} passed by DIG, Respondent No. 5, whereby & whereunder Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment was dismissed.

¶20

iii. For quashing of the order dt.04.11.2020 {Annexure 11-(1)} passed by I.G., Respondent No. 4 whereby & whereunder petition for

¶21

1

¶22

2026:JHHC:4035 review against order of punishment as well as appellate order was dismissed.

¶23

iv. For quashing of the order dt. 25.01.23 (Annexure 15). Spl. DG, Respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder Petition under Rule 30 of the CRPF Rules was dismissed.

¶24

v. For quashing of the Departmental Proceedings and for allowing the Petitioner to rejoin his service, post Rank, in continuance, which is ceased by the Respondents with all consequential benefits including back wages.

¶25

The petitioner was recruited as Constable (GD) in CRPF in 2017. He underwent for basic training. On 10.06.2019, he was sent for a six-week course and after completing the course, he started his return journey on 01.08.2019. During the journey as he was sleeping, his service rifle was snatched by a thief who jumped from the moving train. An FIR was lodged on 02.08.2019. He was placed under suspension on 02.08.2019 alleging negligence and sleeping on sentry duty. A departmental enquiry was ordered and proceedings initiated. Meanwhile, the stolen rifle was recovered by police on 11.12.2019. The petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner filed an appeal and review which were rejected. He further filed a petition under Rule 30 of CRPF Rules, 1955 which was rejected vide order dated 25.01.2023. Hence, he filed this writ petition.

¶26

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was never assigned sentry duty nor issued a security chain. He further submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted without giving him a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Commandant imposed the harsh punishment of removal from service, ignoring mitigating facts like the recovery of the weapon and the petitioner’s courageous actions. He also submits that the appeal, review and petition under Rule 30 filed by the petitioner were rejected. He further submits that the

¶27

2

¶28

2026:JHHC:4035

¶29

petitioner should be reinstated with all service benefits, as the punishment is harsh, disproportionate, and unjust.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondents submits that during the departmental enquiry, it was proved that while the petitioner was on sentry duty, he slept on duty and failed to properly secure his rifle. Due to petitioner’s negligence, a civilian stole his rifle from the slow-moving train. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer found the charges fully proved based on evidence and witnesses. After considering all facts and the seriousness of the misconduct, the competent authority awarded the punishment of “Removal from Service”. He also submits that petitioner’s appeal, review, and petition filed under Rule 30 were rejected as they had no merit. He further submits that the punishment was appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Thus, his removal from service was justified.

¶31

After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable service rules after granting the petitioner full opportunity of hearing. Loss of a service rifle from possession of a member of force, due to negligence is a serious misconduct, especially in a disciplined force. A member of the force is personally responsible for the safety and security of his weapon. The fact that the rifle was later recovered does not dilute the seriousness of the negligence. Sleeping on sentry duty and failure to secure the weapon amount to gross misconduct. Further the petitioner is a member of disciplined force (constable), hence he is required to maintain strict discipline [refer, Samar Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 94 ].

¶32

3

¶33

2026:JHHC:4035 6. The Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, does not act as an Appellate Authority over departmental proceeding, unless perversity or gross illegality is shown, which is absent in the present case. Further, it is well settled that the punishment awarded to the petitioner, unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review by the court. In the present case, the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate considering the gravity of the charge.

¶34

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 , in paragraph 19 has held as under-

¶35

19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows:

¶36

19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.

¶37

19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.

¶38

19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.

¶39

19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.

¶40

19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the codelinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the codelinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with

¶41

4

¶42

2026:JHHC:4035 unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.

¶43

In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I find that the punishment given to the petitioner commensurate with the proved charge, in view of gravity of the misconduct. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶45

11^th February, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 16 /02/2026

¶46

5

Dinesh Mathur v. the Union of India through Home Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Mathur v. the Union of India through Home Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

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

Anila Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alok Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand, Thro Its Pr. Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Deptt.

Arastus Ekka Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Tej Narayan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramij Raja Vs State of Jharkhand