Union of India, Vs Kishan Kumar Azmeera

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 963 OF 2025

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Writ Appeal^preferred against the order dated.18l03l2o25 passed in Review l.A.No.1 of 2018 in W P No. 6403 of 2013 and^pass on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Union of lndia, Rep. by its lnspector General, South Sector, Central lndustrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, CISF South Sector Headquarters, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.

¶10

The Deputy lnspector General, Central lndustrial Security Force, Ministry of Home.Affairs, Department of Space Head Quarters, Antariksha Bhavan, New BEL Road, Bangalore.

¶11

The Commandant, Central lndustrial Security Force, tMinistry of Home^Affairs, QISF^{Unit, VSSC, Thumba,Kerala State.}

¶12

The Assistant Commandant, Central lndustrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, CISF Unit, NRSC, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 625.

¶13

...APPELLANTS

¶14

AND

¶15

Kishan Kumar Azmeera, S/o Raju Naik, Aged about 43 Years, Occ. ExConstable/Sweeper, N o 5-47, Chanthripapal ly Village, G urrampet^{( Post)} Bhupalpally Mandal, Warangal District.

.RESPONDENT

i1 i1 {,1

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order 18-03-2025 in Rev.l.A.No. 1 of 2018 in W.P.No. 6403 of 2013.

¶20

Counsel for thr: Appellants: SRI ARAVIND KUMAR KATA, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL

¶21

counsel for the Respondents: sRl KISHAN KUMAR AZMEERA (PARTY-!N-PERSON)

¶22

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶23

,iq

¶24

IN THE HIGH COT'RT FOR THE STATE OF TEIIINGAITA AT TTYDERABAD

¶25

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARFSH KT'IVIAR SINGH

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶28

WRIT APPEAL No.963 OF 2025

¶29

DATE: l0^. 02. .2026

¶30

Between

¶31

Union of India and 3 others

¶32

....Appellants

¶33

AND

¶34

Kishan Kumar Azrneera

¶35

...Respondert

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated L8.03.2O25 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review I.A.No.1 of 201.8 in W.P.No.6403 of 2O13. The operative portion of impugned

¶38

order of the learned Single Judge is extracted hereunder:

¶39

B. In that uiew of the matter, the irnpugrted punishrnent of remoual from seruice sfands modiJied to that of Compulsory Retire-ntent from Seruice, with effect from O 5. 0 6. 2 O 1 2.

¶40

Accordingly, the reuieut petitionis disposed of 'No costs'. The respondent department shall take necessary steps for tlrc payntent of pension and retirement benefits as applicable to tLrc petitioner within a period of three month.s from the date of receipt of a copg of this order,^'lhe petitioner shall not claim ang interest on tLe pension and retirement benefits due, on arcount of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if ang, shall stand closed.

¶41

Heard Sri Aravind Kumar Kata, learned Standing Counsel for

¶42

central Government appearing for appellants and Sri Kishan Kumar Azmeera, respondent (party-in-person) and perused the record.

¶43

2

¶44

Factual background⁽ⁱⁿ brieff

¶45

The respondent was appointed as a Constable/Su/eeper^{in the} Cerrtral Industrial Security^{Force(CISF) on 14.09.L997aud served in} various u:rits in Andhra Pradesh.^{During thc respondent'sservice} tenure, he, was imposed^{with two major punishrnentsand six minor} punishments for misconduct, mostly^{relating tounauthorized} absence a.rd overstay of^leave.

¶46

In the incident relating to^{the removal of the respondent,the} responden[ ,i1s sanctioned^{earnedleavefor a pcriod o[ 13 day-s from} 19.10.2011 to 31.10.2011^{and was requiredto report for dutl'on} 02.ll.2Oll. The respondent,^{however,failed to report for dut)' and} remained absent without authorisation.^{Despitecall up notices in} connectiorL with the departmental^{enquiry, the respondent neither} responded nor participated^{in the proceedings.}

¶47

Conr;equently, a Memorandum of Charge No'V1s014/clsiF/vssc/DISC/AKKl2Or2l49^{dated 03.01.2o12 {',as} issued to the respondent,^{framing two articlesof chargeunderRule} 36 of CISF Rules 2OOl,^{namely: (i) unauthorrzedabsencefrom duty} with effect from O2.ll.2}ll;^{and (ii) incorrigibleattitudein view of} his past s:rvice record.^{A departmental enquiry was conducted in} accordanct: with the Rules.^{As the respondentfailed to participate,} the enquiry was conducted^{ex parte, and by final orderdated}

\

tI i ,i

3

,.n

O5.06.2OL2, the disciplinary^{authorityimposed the penalty of} 'removal from service.'

¶53

The statutory appeal and revision^{filed by the respondentwere} dismissed by the appellate^{and revisionalauthoritiesby ordersdated} 2l.oB.2Ol2 and 30.11.2012^{respectively. Aggrievedthereby,the} respondent filed W.P. No.6403^{of 2013. The learned Single Judge, by} order dated I5.06.2018, dismissed^{the writ petition, upholding the} penalty of removal from service.

¶54

Thereafter, the respondent liled^{Review I.A. No.1 of2018} seeking review of the order dated 15.06.2018.^{By the impugned order} dated 18.03.2025, the learned Single Judge^{allowed the review} petition, holding that the punishment of removal^{from service was} disproportionate to the charge of unauthorized^{absence, having} regard to the respondent's length of^{service,and accordingly modified} the punishment to that of compulsory^{retirement from service rvith} effect from 05.06.2012, with consequential^{pensionary benelits.}

¶55

Assailing the said order^passed in revierv,^{the appellantshave} preferred the present writ appeal.

¶56

Contentions on behalf of the appellants

¶57

g. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the appellants^has contended:

¶58

I

¶59

4

¶60

Thzrt the learned Single Judge exceeded the permissible limits anc, tht: limited scope of review jurisdiction under order XLVII Rule I of the code of civil procedure, 190g (for short 'cpc).

¶61

1I That Lhe power of revierv is circumscribed and can be exercised onll' on the grounds expressly enumerated under Order XLVII Rult: 1 cPC, namely, discovery of new and important matter or evidence , error apparent on the face of the record, and none oI these statutory grounds were made out in the review petition. The respondent under the guise of a revieu, sought a reconsideration ol the quantum of punishment, which amounts to a rehearing on merits and is impermissible in review.

¶62

That the learned Single Judge, while passing the order dated 15.Oti.2018 dismissing the writ petition, had exhaustively exarr inecl the disciplinary procecdings, the nature of chargcs, the :-espondent's past conduct, and the proportionalitv of punis;hment. Re-visiting the same issues in review jurisdiction amounts to sitting in appeal over one's own judgment, a course expressly disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in perry Kansagra a. Smriti Madan Kansagral, and Murali Sundq.ram u. Jothibai Kannan2.

¶63

iv That the finding recorded in the impugned order that rhe punis.rment of removal from service was disproportionate

¶64

' lzorsy^{20 scc 7i;3}

¶65

'z(2023l|^{13 scc sls}

¶66

5

¶67

,,7

¶68

amounts to a re-appreciation of^{evidence and re-evaluationof} facts, which is whotly beyond the^{scope of review.Placing} reliance on^(Jnion oJ India a. P.^{Gunoseko,rons,itwas} submitted that even in^{judicialrevicu, ofdisciplinary} proceedings, the High Court cannot re-assess^{evidence or} interfere with the conclusions of the^{disciplinary authority,} much less in review proceedings.

¶69

v That the respondent was a member^{of a disciplined force and} that unauthorized absence, even for a^{short duration,} constitutes a serious act of^{indiscipline. 'lherespondent's} service record disclosed two major and^{six minor punishments,} establishing an incorrigible pattern^{olmisconduct.The} observation in the impugned order that^{the respondentwas} absent for "only about 107 days" tn^{14 years was contendedto} be legally untenable, as cumulative^{misconduct, and not} isolated duration of absence,^governs the^{proportionaliry of} punishment in a uniformed force.

¶70

vl That leniency in matters of^{prolongedandrepeated} unauthorized absence would undermine^{discipline and} operational efficiency. Reliance was^placedonThe Cotnm.c;ndant, 22 Bqttalion, CRPf Srinogar^{and Ors. Vs.} Surinder Kumart to contend that Courts must^exercise

¶71

'(2015) 2 scc 6ro ' MANU/sc/ t266l2otr

¶72

r

¶73

6

¶74

restraint whilc interfering with penalties imposed in disciplined for,--es.

¶75

vii. Thzrt the respondent had wilfully abandoned service, as evident frorn his submission of resignation vi,hile on unauthorized lea*e , failure to respond to four call..-up notices dated 03. t I .2ott, 12.1 1.20r 1, 22.rr.2orr and or.r2.2orr, and deliberate non-participation in the departmental enquiry.

¶76

viii. That thc conccpt of "error apparent on the face of the record,, in the domain of revien, jurisdiction, contemplates a patent and self-evident error, not one which requires elaborate reasoping or pcrnrits tu,o possiblc vielvs. Reliance was placed on Ka,nr'Iesh verma u. Magautqti and otherss to contend that the Inere possibility of an alternative view does not furnish a grourd for revierv

¶77

ix. That the punishment imposccl by the disciplinary authority was neither arbitrary rlor shocking to the conscience of the cour -, having regard to the respondent,s incorrigible servicc recorrl and the nature of duties performed. The impugned order passed in review was therefore liable to be set aside.

¶78

Contentions by the respondent (party-in-person)

¶79

The rt:spondent appeared as party-in-person. Be it noted here that having regard to the complexity of the legal issue involved in the present matter, this court offered to provide the respondents (20r3)s scc 32tx\

¶80

7

¶81

a

¶82

employee with the services^{of a Legal-aidcounselthroughthe High} Court Legal Services Authority.^{Althoughthe petitioner initially} accepted the said offer,^{he has subsequently expressed his desire to} proceed in-person and has declined^{the assistance of the empanellecl} counsel

¶83

As the respondent appeared^{in-person andadvanced} arguments in Hindi, this Court^{has, with a view to effectively} adjudicate the matter and^{contextualisethe submissions within} established legal frameworks,^{distilled thecontentions intoa} legalistic lormat and referred^{to relevantauthorities supportingthe} substance of the arguments.

¶84

L2. The respondent in-person^contended:

¶85

(i) That the learned Single Judge was^{justilied in exercising review} jurisdiction to prevent grave injustice.

¶86

(ii) That the service difliculties arose^{primarily due tothe} respondent's efforts to pursue higher education^{with a view to} self-improvement, which repeatedly^{conflicted withhis} postings outside Hyderabad. The respondent's^{requests for} transfer on educational^{groundswere rejected, leaving him} with no viable alternative.

¶87

(iii) That during the relevant period, the^{respondent's family} suffered a severe personal tragedy^{owing to the suddendemise} of his elder brother, who^{was also serving in the CISF.The}

¶88

rE,

¶89

,,,;,'.l+Ee-lih.lr:,t.4,:.rdr$+:.1;^{r i.ri':.1'} :l;.,. : ::

¶90

t

¶91

8

¶92

ernotional trauma caused by this event, coupled with the res;pondent's responsibility towards aged parents, rendered hirn incapable of reporting back to duty or effectively particiltating irr tl-re dcpartrnental proceedings.

¶93

(it') ThzrL hc belor-rgs to the scheduled Tribe community and hails frorn an impo'erishecl family, and his employment was the sole meilns of livelihood fclr his dependents. The punishment of removal from service, rvhich disentitles him to pensionary ben:fits, had car-astrophic consequences for his family.

¶94

(v) Thar the punishment of removal from service was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, as the respondent's total abscnce of approximately 107 days over a service span of 14 years, which viewed in the backdrop of personal hardship and his low-ranking position, did not warrir.nt the severest penalty under service jurisprudence.

¶95

("i) That similarl-1, situated employees, including one of his batcLLmates, charged n'ith a similar misconduct of unauthorised absence had been awarded the lesser penalty of compuisory retirement with pensionary benefits, and that denia of similar treatment amounted to discrimination.

¶96

(vii) That the respondent's mental and emotional condition follow:ng his brother's death constituted a significant mitigating circumstance, which was not given due

¶97

9

¶98

7

¶99

consideration by the disciplinary^{authorityor the original writ} court.

¶100

(viii) That the expression "any^{other sufficient reason" under Order} XLVII Rr-rle 1 CPC is wide enough^{to encompass cases where} failure to review would result^{in manifest injustice.Relianceis} placed on s. Nagarai and others^{u. state of Karnatq.ka and} others' to contend that Courts^{possess inherent power to}

¶101

correct orders that result^{in miscarriageof justice.}

¶102

(ix) That the modification of^{punishment from removalto} compulsory retirement strikes a^{just balance between the} requirement of discipline and^{the need for compassion,and} that the impugned order^{does not warrantinterference.}

¶103

We have taken note o[ the^{respective contentions urgedand} material on record.

¶104

Consideration by this Court

¶105

L4. It is to be noted that^{the power of review underOrder XLVII} Rule 1 of CPC is a limited and^{exceptional jurisdiction. Reviewis} permissible only on the^groundsof discovery^{of new and important} matter or evidence, which^{after exercise of due diligencewas not} within the knowledge of the applicant,^{or on accountof an error} apparent on the face of the record,^{or for any other sufficient reason} analogous thereto.

¶106

n MANU/sc/o797 / 1993

¶107

t0

¶108

It .s u'ell settled through a catena of decisions of the Hon,ble Supreme court that review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. A review court does not sit in appeal over its own judgment, nor can it re-hear thc matter on merits nrerely because another 'ielv is possible. The object of review is only to correct a patent er.or and not to substitute a different opinion.

¶109

The Apex court in yashwant sinha and others u. central Bureau of Inuestigation through its Director and. anotherz has categorically held that review lies only lor correction of a manifest error and that re-appreciation of evidence or re-consideration of conclusior,s already arrived at is impermissible . Similarly, in Kamlesh Verma (supra S), the principles governing review jurisdiction have been succinctly summarized, holding that repetition of old argtrments and rc-examination of issues already decided do not constitute grounds for review, u,hich is extracted hereunder for ready refert:nce:

¶110

2O.2. When the reuiew will not. be maintainable: (i) tl repetition of old and ouerntlecl argument is not enough to reo p e n co nclu de d adj u dicatio ns. (ii) Irlinor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) .Reuieut proceedings cannot be equated. u.tith the original hearing of tlrc. case.

¶111

(iu) Reuiew rs not maintainabre unress the mateiar error, manifest on lhe face of the order, undermines its sound.ness or results in miscarriag e of lustice.

¶112

(u) tl reuieut is by .no means an appeal in disguise wherebg an erro,Leous decision is reheard qnd corrected. but lies onrg for pitent erTot'.

¶113

(ui)^',he nere possibilitg of two uiews on the subject cannot be a grou,td for reuietu.

'12ozo1z scc st'\

ll

,.>,')

(uii) The error apparent on the face of the^{record should not be an} error whtch has to be fished out^andsearched. (uiii) The appreciatton of euirletlce on^recordis fully^{ttithin the} domain of the appellate court,^{it cannotbe permitted to be aduanced} in the reuiew petitioru

¶118

(ix) Reuiew ts not nmintainable when the same^{relief soughtat the} time of arguirtg the^rnairu matter^{ltad been negatiued.}

¶119

L7. A perusal of the review petition^{filed by the respondent} discloses that the grounds urged therein,^{pertainessentiallyto the} alleged disproportionality of^{punishment, length of service, personal} hardship, and socio-economic background^{of the respondent. These} issues were already urged and considered^{inthe originalwrit} proceedings and formed the subject matter of^{adjudicationinthe} order dated 15.06.2018. While this^{Court is not insensitive to the} respondent's personal circumstances^{the factors Such as, his tribal} background, family tragedy etc.,^{howevercompelling,cannot override} the paramount need [or discipline and^{accountability inan} uniformed force. The respondent's^{failure to respondto multiple} notices and participate in^{thedepartmentalproceedings} demonstrates a lvilful disregard.

¶120

The learned Single Judge,^while allowing^{the review petition,} undertook a fresh assessment^{of the proportionality of punishment,} the period of absence, and the^{respondent's service tenure, and on} such re-evaluation concluded that the^{punishment of removalfrom} service was disproportionate. This^{exercise amounts tore-} appreciation of flacts and substitution^{of a different view on the same} material, which is impermissible in^{review jurisdiction. This Court}

¶121

. ',-.^{.:l:'.i;:,:,'..}

¶122

t2

¶123

acknowledges the respondent's long service of 14 years and the severe irnpact of removal without pension on his family. These are undenial:ly sympathetic factors. Honever, the role of a court in judicial ;-evicrn, is not to acL as a super-discipiinary authority. The penalty <>f rcmoval, imposed after duc process and upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities as r.t ell as the lcarned Single Judge in original jurisdiction cannot be termed per se perverse or shockingly disproportionate in the context of a habitual offender in a disciplinec force. To allow personal hardships to routincly mitigate penalties for absentecism u,ould erode discipline and set an un'*,orkable prccedent for forces where presence and reliability are non-negotiable.

¶124

whi..e this court is not unmoved by the respondent,s plea for compassion, the imperatives o[ institutional discipline, the limited scope of r:view jurisdiction, and the need to maintain integrity of hierarchal adjudication compel the restoration of the original order.

¶125

It is to be noted rhat the original order dated 1s.06.201g had expressly considered the respondent's past service record, repeated acts of unauthorized absence, and the nature of duties in a disciplined force. The impugned order does not point out any patent or self-evidr:nt error in the said findings. The mere formation of a different opinion on proportionality does not constitute an .,error apparent on the face of the record,,.

¶126

r3

¶127

It is to be noted that an error apparent must be manifest and obvious, not one which requires a long-drawn^{processof reasoning or} permits two plausible views. In the present case the^{question of} proportionality of punishment necessarily involves an^evaluative exercise, and a more sympathetic assessment^{cannotretrospectively} render thc earlier view erroneous in law.

¶128

Further, it is also not in dispute that no^{new or additional} material was placed before the Court in^{review. The impugnedorder} is founded entirely on [he same factual^{matrixwhich had already} been examined in the original^{rvrit petition. Thus, the impugned} order passed in review travels beyond the^{permissible contours of} Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

¶129

On perusal of the record, it indicates that the^respondent's sefvice record reveals two major ancl six minor^{punishments,largely} on account of overstay of leave and unauthorized absence.^The charge in question was not an isolated instance but^{part of a} continuing pattern of indiscipline of the respondent.^Further,the respondent failure to report back to duty despite repeated^call-up notices and faiture to participate in the departmental enquiry,^and the submission of a resignation letter while on^leave reflects a^{lack of} commitment to service

¶130

The CISF being a central armed^police force^{entrusted with the} protection of vital installations. Discipline and availability are

T

l4

i:: I I I ,:

fbundatic,nal to its functioning. In such forces, unauthorized absence, e\ren for limited periods, has serious operational implicaticrns. The Hon'ble Suprcme court in Deputg Inspector General of Police u. s. samuthirams by reiterating thc vierv taken in state Bank of Hgderabad v. p. Kata Raos has consistently caut.ioned thzrt Courts must exercise great restrair-rt u,hile interfering with purrishment imposed in discipiinary matters concerning uniformec. serwices.

¶135

In the present case, the disciplinary authorit-r,, appelrate aruthority, revisional authority, and the writ Court in its original jurisdictio:r concurrently found the pcnalty justificd. This coq11 ig unable to hoid that the punishment imposed shocks the judicial conscience . Therefore, the punishment imposed cannoL be said to be shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant interference.

¶136

Conclusio:n

¶137

F'or the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered opinion thtrt the learned Single Judge exceeded the limits of review jurisdiction in allowing Revier,r, I.A. No.1 of 2018 on grounds not contemplated under order XLVII Rule 1 of cpc. conscquently, the order dateri 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Singte Judge in Review [.A. No.l of 20i8 in w.P. No.6403 of 2013 is held to be unsustainacle in law.

¶138

MANU/sc/ ro29 /2ot)" e MANU/SC//75 ltt/2003

l5

i li t, t: I I I !

I II III, i i

I

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is^{allowed and the orderdated} 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Single^{Judgein Review I.A. No.1 of} 2018 in W.P. No.64O3 ot2013 is set aside.^{In view of the above, the} order dated 15.06.2018^{passed in W.P. No.6403of 2013 dismissing} the writ petition and affirming^{the penaltyof removal fromservice} imposed upon the respondent stands^restored.

¶144

2A. In consequence thereof, the^{clirections issued in the impugned} review order relating to^grant ol^{pensionary and retirement benefits} are vacated, and the respondent shall^{not be entitled toany} pensionary benefits consequent upon removal^{fromservice. However,} terminal benefits, if any, surch as^{()encral ProvidentFund (GPF),} which are otheru,ise admissible and not^{liable to forfeitureunderthe} applicable Rules, shall be released in^{accordance with law, subjectto} compliance with the prescribed lormalities.^{No orderas to costs.}

¶145

As a sequel, the miscellancous^peLitions,if any,^{shall stand}

¶146

-clased.

¶147

SD/.M.RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT

//TRUE COPY/

ER

To,

Union of lndia, Rep. by its lnspector General, South Sector, Central lndustrial Security Force, Ministry of Horne Affairs, CISF South Sector Headquarters, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.

¶152

The Deputy lnspector General, Central lndustrial Security Forcg, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Space Head Quarters, Antariksha Bhavan, New BEL Road, Bangalore.

¶153