The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a compulsory retirement order with full pensionary benefits. The Court held that it cannot act as an appellate authority under Article 226 and found the punishment proportionate given the petitioner's prior disciplinary record.
The writ petition was dismissed without 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19897 of 2012
====================================================== Balmiki Singh, S/O late Ram Bilash Singh, R/O Village +P.O.-Dullapur, P.S.-Semri, Distt-Buxar
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. N. A. Shamsi, Asstt. S.G. Mr. Manoranjan Kumar, C.G.C.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER
5 05-04-2013 Heard the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure-3) passed by the disciplinary authority, whereby on the basis of findings recorded by the Inquiring Officer in a disciplinary proceeding, punishment of ‘compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary
Patna High Court CWJC No.19897 of 2012 (5) dt.05-04-2013
2 / 4
benefits, i.e. pension and gratuity’ has been inflicted upon the petitioner under the provisions of The Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 read with The Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 ( in short ‘Rules’)
The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of punishment in appeal and revision, but the appeal has been rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 23.1.2012 (Annexure-4) and the revision has been rejected by the revisional authority by order dated 3/ 4.5.2012 (Annexure-5). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner while working and posted as Constable at CISF Unit, NSPCL, Rourkela , he was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding under Rule-36 of the Rules for certain charges of misconduct and misbehaviour. According to him, the petitioner denied the charges and further charges against the petitioner were of trivial nature, yet the disciplinary authority has inflicted upon him a very harsh punishment of compulsory retirement from service, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as also by the revisisonal authority without considering the defence of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the impugned order is set aside and he is reinstated in service, then the petitioner shall continue in service further for eighteen long years. On these pleas, he submits that the matter requires reconsideration by the disciplinary authority. He lastly submits that quantum of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the guilt proved against the petitioner, and, therefore, at least, on the question of quantum of punishment the matter is required to be reconsidered.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19897 of 2012 (5) dt.05-04-2013
3 / 4
Mr. N.A. Shamsi, learned Assistant solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer. He has placed heavy reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. He submits that admittedly the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and he participated in the said proceeding. He was given full opportunity to place his defence for disproving the article of charges framed against him. It is highlighted that prior to the instant proceeding, the petitioner was inflicted 17 more major or minor punishments for his misconduct and misbehaviour, out of which 3 were major punishments, yet the petitioner was retained in service with a hope that he will improve himself in future, but he has failed to do so, and again for his misconduct he was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding in which the charges framed against the petitioner were found to have been proved by the Inquiring Officer. It is highlighted that the petitioner was a member of a disciplined force and in view of nature of guilt proved against him, punishment inflicted upon him cannot be said to be harsh by any standard. It is pointed out that though the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service by the impugned order of punishment but he has been given the full pensionary benefits of pension and gratuity. Therefore, according to him, quantum of punishments inflicted upon the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges proved against him.
After having heard the parties, this Court finds that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not pointed out any procedural error committed by the respondent authorities while initiating and concluding the disciplinary
Patna High Court CWJC No.19897 of 2012 (5) dt.05-04-2013
4 / 4
proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of the Rules. It is well settled that while exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not supposed to sit as an appellate authority. High Court is required to see the decision making process only and not the decision itself. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors[ A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 484= (1995) 6 SCC 749) . Further, this Court finds that the petitioner was earlier inflicted 17 punishments for his act of omission and commission and despite opportunity given he did not improve himself. This Court, in the factual background of the case, is of the opinion that quantum of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to the guilt proved against him.
For the reasons recorded above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. Consequently, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Kanth/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is empowered to sit as an appellate authority over disciplinary proceedings under Article 226.
Whether the quantum of punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the guilt proved against the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner required reinstatement and reconsideration of the punishment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & OrsReferred¶25
B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors[ A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 484= (1995) 6 SCC 749) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balmiki Singh
The Union Of India
Director General Of Police, C.I.S.F.
Inspector General Of Police, C.I.S.F.
D.I.G. Of Police, C.I.S.F. Unit
The Senior Commandant , C.I.S.F.
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
