S.Pushpa Raju v. The Union of India

Madras HC20 Nov 2025WP/31986/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CISF disciplinary proceeding; minor penalty; Rule 37 Central Industrial Security Force Rules 2001; no opportunity of hearing before Disciplinary Authority; natural justice; O.K. Bhardwaj (2001) 9 SCC 180 relied on; theft of 25 meters 11 KV cable; handover endorsement 'everything is OK'; punishment set aside; recovery refunded without interest; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; Madras High Court; K. Surender J.; decided 20.11.2025; W.P.No.31986 of 2016.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; punishment imposed and confirmed by the impugned orders set aside; respondents directed to pay the amount recovered from the petitioner without interest within four weeks; no costs; connected WMP closed ¶79-81

S.Pushpa Raju Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶79-81

Issue for consideration

Whether the minor punishment was invalidly imposed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before the Disciplinary Authority, in violation of Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 +1 more

¶45-47

Court's answer

The punishment inflicted on the petitioner is not disputed to be minor, and Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 contemplates the procedure applicable while imposing minor penalties

¶48-50

Ratio / Principle

Under Rule 37, no minor penalty can be imposed unless the officer is informed in writing of the imputations of misconduct and given a reasonable opportunity to make representation

¶56-57

Key takeaways

On the record, the charge handed over by the petitioner on 21.05.2012 was endorsed 'everything is OK' and the succeeding sentries likewise found the cable in OK condition; therefore it cannot be specifically said that the theft occurred only during the petitioner's dutyratio¶76
In such view of the matter, the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained; accordingly, the punishment imposed and confirmed on the petitioner by the respondents vide the orders impugned in the Writ Petition is set asideratio¶77-78

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K. Surender, J.) allowed a writ petition by a CISF officer (ASI) challenging disciplinary punishment. A charge memo dated 07.09.2012 alleged theft of approximately 25 meters of 11 KV cable during his duty hours; after enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority (4th respondent) imposed a fine equivalent to two days' pay, confirmed in appeal by the 3rd respondent (19.03.2013) and in revision by the 2nd respondent (14.06.2013). Held: (i) the punishment being minor, Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 mandates that before imposing a minor penalty the officer be informed in writing of the imputations and given a reasonable opportunity to make representation; the petitioner was given no opportunity of being heard before the Disciplinary Authority, consistent with the principle in O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 180, that even for minor penalties an opportunity to explain is the minimum requirement of natural justice; (ii) on facts, the petitioner's handover endorsement of 21.05.2012 ('everything is OK') and the succeeding sentries' endorsements showed the cable in OK condition, so it could not be specifically said that the theft occurred only during the petitioner's duty. The punishment could not be sustained and the impugned orders were set aside; respondents directed to refund the amount recovered, without interest, within four weeks; connected WMP closed.

¶1

W.P.No.31086 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

W.P.No. 31986 of 2016 and WMP No. 27716 OF 2016

¶7

S.Pushpa Raju S/o.Samuel, Quarters No.108, SRP Complex, SCCL, Singareni Post, Naspur, Adilabad District, Telengana State

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. The Union of India

¶11

Rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi

¶12

2.The Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, Head Quarters, D-Block, First Floor, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090

¶13

3.The Commandant

¶14

Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli,

¶15

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.31086 of 2016

¶18

Cuddalore District

¶19

4.The Sector Commander Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Mine-II, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli, Cuddalore District

¶20

.. Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 14.06.2013 in his Order No. V-15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Appeal-37/SPR/2013/6078 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 19.03.2013 in his Order No. V-15014/ CISF/NLC/Disc/Appeal-37/SPR/2015/3015 and confirming the final order passed by the 4th respondent dated 10.10.2012 in his Final Order No. V- 15014/CISF/SC-M-II/Disc/SP/12-418, and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all monetary benefits.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Mujbur Rahman

¶23

For Respondent(s): No appearance

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for the issuance of a

¶26

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order

¶27

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.31086 of 2016

¶30

passed by the 2nd respondent dated 14.06.2013 in his Order No. V-

¶31

15014/CISF/NLC/Disc/Appeal-37/SPR/2013/6078 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 19.03.2013 in his Order No. V-15014/ CISF/NLC/Disc/Appeal-37/SPR/2015/3015 and confirming the final order passed by the 4th respondent dated 10.10.2012 in his Final Order No. V-

¶32

15014/CISF/SC-M-II/Disc/SP/12-418, and quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay all monetary benefits.

¶33

The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition,

¶34

are that a charge memo, dated 07.09.2012 was issued to the petitioner while

¶35

he was working as ASI, alleging that during his duty hours, a theft was committed in his area of responsibility and approximately 25 meters of 11

¶36

KV cable was stolen and taken away by the miscreants. After conducting an

¶37

enquiry and based on the findings of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., 4th respondent herein, imposed a punishment of fine to an

¶38

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.31086 of 2016

¶41

amount equivalent to two days of his pay. Consequently, the appeal and the

¶42

revision filed by the petitioner against the award of punishment, also came

¶43

to be rejected by the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitoiner would submit that though

¶45

minor punishment was awarded for the alleged lapse on the part of the petitioner, however, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being

¶46

heard before the Disciplinary Authority which is an violation of Rule 37 of

¶47

the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001.

¶48

It is not disputed that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner

¶49

is minor. Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001

¶50

contemplates procedure while imposing minor penalties.

¶51

Rule 37 of the said Rule requires that no minor penalty can be

¶52

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.No.31086 of 2016

¶55

imposed

¶56

(i) Unless any Officer is informed in writing about

¶57

the imputations of misconduct and reasonable opportunity has been given for making representation.

¶58

(ii) Holding an enquiry if the disciplinary authority so desires;

¶59

(iii) Considering the representation, given by the Officer, the Enquiry Officer can record his findings of imputation of misconduct.”

¶60

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in “O.K.BHARDWAJ Vs. UNION

¶61

OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2001) 9 SUPREME COURT CASES – 180” ,

¶62

held as follows:-

¶63

“2. The High Court has recorded its opinion on two

¶64

questions: (i) that the punishment imposing stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is not a major penalty but a minor penalty; (ii) in the case of minor penalties, “it is not necessary to give opportunity to the employee to give

¶65

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

W.P.No.31086 of 2016

¶68

explanation and it is also not necessary to hear him before awarding the penalty”: a detailed departmental enquiry is also not contemplating in a case in which minor penalty is to be awarded.

¶69

While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that “withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect” is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.”

¶70

As seen from the record, at the time of handing over the charge by the petitioner to Const/GD S K Meeravali, on 21.05.2012, he endorsed

¶71

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

W.P.No.31086 of 2016

¶74

that ‘everything is OK’ and later, the said Meeravali, in turn handed over his

¶75

charge of duty to HC/GD V Tellis, who also found the cable is in OK

¶76

condition. However, later, it was found that 25 meters of 11 KV cable was missing. Therefore, in the given circumstances, it cannot be specifically said that the theft had occurred only when the petitioner was duty. In such view

¶77

of the matter, the punishment imposed on the petitioner, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the punishment imposed and confirmed on the petitioner by

¶78

the respondents vide orders impugned in the Writ Petition, are hereby set aside.

¶79

The Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to

¶80

pay the amount recovered from the petitioner without interest to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶81

this order. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.

¶82

¶83

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶84

W.P.No.31086 of 2016

¶85

K.SURENDER, J. 20.11.2025

¶86

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No suk

¶87

¶88

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶89

W.P.No.31086 of 2016

¶90

¶91

The Union of India Rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi

¶92

2.The Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, Head Quarters, D-Block, First Floor, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090

¶93

3.The Commandant Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli, Cuddalore District

¶94

4.The Sector Commander Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Mine-II, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli, Cuddalore District

¶95

¶96

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶97

W.P.No.31086 of 2016

¶98

K.SURENDER, J.

¶99