A CISF Constable charged with gross indiscipline for not standing up before a superior officer and abusing him was fined three days' pay under Rule 32(1), CISF Rules. Appeals and revision were rejected. The court found the penalty trivial and the misconduct admitted, and dismissed the writ petition.
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.28842 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P.No.28842 of 2015
M.M.Acharya
... Petitioner
Vs.
Page No.1 of 7
W.P.No.28842 of 2015
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 6th respondent dated 19.06.2015 in his order No.-15014/FACT/Disc/2014-616 returning the application submitted by the petitioner dated 08.06.2015 and the order 11014(1)/Rev/53/MMA/Disc/SZ/2014/8505 confirming the order of the 5th respondent dated 12.03.2014 in his Appellate Order No.V15014/FACT/Disc/MMA/2014/746 confirming the order of the 6th respondent dated 25.01.2014 in his Final Order No.V-15014/FACT/Dis/Min13-2013/SVCN/2014/148 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay the 2nd MACP benefits and promotion and all other monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman For R1 to R6 : Mr.M.Arvind Kumar, SCGPC
O R D E R
Page No.2 of 7
W.P.No.28842 of 2015
The petitioner herein while working as a Constable/GD was subjected
to disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo dated 26.12.2013, containing a single charge which reads as under:
"That No.921400855 Constable/GDM.M.ACHARYA of CISF Unit FACT (UDL) of Plant Copy was deployed for " C" shift duty at Strong Room on the intervening night of 10/11.12.2013 from 2100 hrs to 0600 hrs. At about 2205 Hrs HC/GD P.C.Pandian deployed at Production Gate proceeded to Strong Room for checking. CT/GD M.M.Acharya was talking on intercom phone and die not stand up as a mark of respect. Again the HC/GD went for checking at 0210 Hrs. CT/GD M.M.Acharya was sitting and found slack on duty. He did not stand up. When HC/GD P.C.Pandian told that he will complain to Commandant regarding his behavior, CT/GD M.M.Acharya told him not to threaten using Commandant's name and also abused him telling " Tum beemar aadmi hai nahi to main tumhe maar deta". This act of No.921400855 Constable/(GJ) M.M.ACHARYA tantamounts to gross indiscipline and misconduct of a Member of an Armed Force of the Union". Hence, the charge.
2. Thereafter, after considering the representation submitted by the petitioner in response to the said charge memo, Respondent No.6 passed a final order dated 25.01.2014, imposing a penalty of "Fine equivalent to 3 days' pay" under Rule 32(1) of CISF Rules, 2001.
3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.01.2014, the petitioner filed an
Page No.3 of 7
W.P.No.28842 of 2015
appeal before Respondent No.6, which was rejected by the Respondent No.5 through an order dated 12.03.2014, concluding that it is a case for enhancement of punishment, but took lenient view and rejected the appeal. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before Respondent No.4, which was also rejected by Respondent No.4 through an order dated 09.12.2014. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 25.01.2014, 12.03.2014 and 09.12.2014, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. The petitioner has admitted that he did not stand up as alleged in the charge when the superior officer came to visit, thereby committing an act gross indiscipline and misconduct as a member of a armed forces of the union. Although the petitioner submitted a representation, he did not dispute the fact that he did not stand up when the superior officer visited him, however he tried to explain his conduct by stating that he was on a telephonic call with another superior officer and that he was suffering from back pain etc. Thus, indirectly, the petitioner admitted to the fact that he did not stand up when the superior officers visited him.
5. Taking this into consideration that the penalty of "Fine equivalent to Three Days' Pay" as confirmed by respondents 4 and 5, respectively, is trivial Page No.4 of 7
W.P.No.28842 of 2015
in nature, and considering the fact that the petitioner also admitted the
misconduct alleged against him i.e., is not standing up when a superior officer visited him, thereby showing insubordination, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned punishment.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
04.12.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No nvi
To:
Page No.5 of 7
W.P.No.28842 of 2015
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
nvi
Page No.6 of 7
W.P.No.28842 of 2015
W.P.No.28842 of 2015
04.12.2024
Page No.7 of 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the minor disciplinary penalty of fine equal to three days' pay imposed on a CISF Constable for indiscipline should be interfered with by the court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.M.Acharya
The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force
The Inspector General, CISF South Sector HQRS
The Deputy Inspector General, CISF South Zone
The Senior Commandant, CISF Unit FACT, Udyogamandal
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
