CISF constable punished with fine for refusing movement order challenged the disciplinary order. The Court found his health issues (vertebral disc problem) were disclosed and he was on weekly off, making the punishment disproportionate. Writ allowed; punishment modified to warning.
Writ petition allowed; punishment modified to warning; no 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.
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
N.K.Singh ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
Central Industrial Security Force, No.13, CGO Complex, Force Head Quarters, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
3.The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Head Quarters, South Sector, Chennai Port Trust Campus, Near War Memorial, Chennai-600 009.
Page 1 of 9
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090.
5.The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Visakhapattinam Port Trust, DLB Building, 2nd Floor, Visakhapattinam Port Area, Visakhapattinam-530 035.
6.The Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, B-Sector, Visakhapattinam Port Trust, Visakhapattinam. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 4th respondent in his Order No.V-11014 (1)/Rev/24/ Disc/SZ/2014/3791 dated 29.05.2014 confirming the order of the 5th respondent in his appellate order No.V-11015/ VPT/ Disc/ Appeal/NKS/14/1243 dated 10.03.2014 confirming the order of the 6th respondent in his final order No.V-15015/ CISF/ VPT/B-Sect/ UR37/NKS/2013/3025 dated 30.12.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to pay all the benefits.
For petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman
Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
For respondents : Mr.R.Siddarth, Central Government Counsel. O RDER
Challenging the dismissal of his representation by the 4th
respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.
Constable on 06.06.1992. On 06.12.2013, he was issued with a charge memo stating that he has committed acts that amounts to gross indiscipline, disobedience of lawful order, dereliction of duty and utter negligence towards performance of Government bonafide duties and unbecoming conduct being a member of discipline force. The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the said charge on 25.12.2013. However, the 6th respondent, on 30.12.2013, proceeded to pass an order without conducting an enquiry, awarding a punishment of penalty of fine to an amount equivalent to five days pay.
Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
weekly off on 29.11.2013. It was only in the forenoon of
29.11.2013, that the authorities had requested one HC/GD
Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
R.P.Singh who was deployed in A shift duty to go to the petitioner's quarters to pass on the message. It is also seen from the order of the revisional authority that the petitioner was not present at his quarters on the said date and the message was given to his wife to ask him to meet the Assistant Commandant and then he has to go to
I.S. duty at Vizianagaram. The respondents have decided to not believe the contention of the petitioner that he was at the hospital when R.P.Singh was gone over to the petitioner's quarters. It is also noticed that on the very same evening, the petitioner had met the Sector Commander to receive the movement order.
Page 6 of 9
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
petitioner had not responded to call of his superiors immediately. The respondents could have warned the petitioner instead of resorting to recovery.
In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the punishment is modified to one of warning. No costs.
23.07.2024
Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order ssa
To
2.The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, No.13, CGO Complex, Force Head Quarters, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
Page 7 of 9
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
P.T.ASHA, J.,
ssa
W.P.No.20289 of 2015
23.07.2024
Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the disciplinary punishment of fine imposed on a CISF constable for disobeying orders was disproportionate given his health condition and holiday status.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.K.Singh
The Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force
The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force
The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force
The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Visakhapattinam Port Trust
P.T.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
