In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present :- The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad and The Hon’ble Justice Partha Pratim Roy Case No. FMA 1927 of 2018 In the matter of : Shyam Singh …Appellant VS. Union of India & Ors. …Respondents For the Appellants : Mr. Debojyoti Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Barun Chatterjee ….Advocates For the Union of India : Ms. Kausiki Bose ….Advocate Heard on : 02.09.2026 Judgment on : September 02, 2026. Madhuresh Prasad, J. :- 1. We have heard the learned senior advocate for the appellant and the learned advocate for the respondents. Page 2 2. The appellant, a constable, was proceeded against in a Departmental Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, found the charges to be proved by the Enquiry Report dated 25th October, 2008. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and proceeded to award the punishment of “Removal from Service” which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the government. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a statutory appeal. The same was rejected by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 7th February, 2009. The revisional application was disposed of on 26th February, 2009. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Ministry under Rule 56 of the CISF Rules. Such review also was not entertained. Under the circumstances, the writ petition was filed, and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 19th July, 2017. The order of the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of the present Intra-Court appeal. 3. The brief facts arise from an event that occurred on 28th January, 2008. The petitioner, a constable in the CISF Unit posted at ONGC, Nazira, was assigned duty at a watch tower in the back of the installation. It was alleged that in between 15:15 hours to 15:25 hours the petitioner fired from his service rifle with an intention to commit suicide. The action, as per the charge memo dated 22nd Page 3 July, 2008, constituted a serious misconduct which tarnished the image of the force. As per the articles of charges contained in the charge memo, the bullet pierced the constable through his body and such act of the petitioner constituted an act of indiscipline, unbecoming a good member of the armed forces, and therefore, constituted a serious misconduct. 4. The charge memo contained a list of fourteen (14) documents based on which the charges were to be established. Seven (7) witnesses were also named therein. The witnesses were examined in presence of the writ petitioner, in the course of enquiry. Several PWs stated about the petitioner proceeding to his duty on the watch tower and leaving the post for drinking water before returning to the watch tower. The witnesses consistently stated about the petitioner being visibly confused and depressed. They have consistently stated about the petitioner being withdrawn from the other members of the force and that he maintained a level of enigma in as much as the members of the force did not even know his background. They have also stated about the petitioner being in the watch tower at the time of the alleged occurrence. They heard the gunshot being fired. Immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found the petitioner having Page 4 sustained a bullet injury. He was, thereafter, taken for medical care and he recovered from his injuries. 5. P.W. 3 and P.W. 6, members of the force, deposed regarding the weapon being an SLR (Self Loading Rifle), which the petitioner was armed with at the time of his duty at the watch tower. They stated that the weapon had a magazine for twenty bullets. One had been fired from the rifle and nineteen were found remaining. Eighteen in the magazine, and one in the chamber. 6. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity in the enquiry and he made his statement before the Enquiry Officer. In his statement, the petitioner did not dispute the consistent evidence of the P.W.s regarding his behavior that he was withdrawn in a state of confusion and maintained an enigma about his life or that he was not interacting with other members of the force. 7. The petitioner also did not dispute that firing occurred from his SLR. He did not dispute the fact that he sustained the bullet injury fired from his service rifle while he was guarding the post from the watch tower. The petitioner, however, took a stand that before standing on the post, he had checked his weapon and found that there were twenty rounds in the magazine. He found the chamber was empty and the safety latch was on “S” (safety). He denied the charges framed against him that he was mentally Page 5 disturbed. He stated that since he was slightly unwell, he suffered a headache and became unstable while on the watch tower. The rifle fell down and while retrieving the same, the firing took place accidentally. It was his case that the injury sustained by him was not by a deliberate act of firing upon himself, rather by a mistake. This is the only dispute/issue raised by the petitioner in the proceeding based on his statement recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry proceeding. Such stand is corroborated by the petitioner’s reply dated 24th October, 2009 to the brief presented by the Presenting Officer on 18th August, 2008. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, proceeded to hold the charges proved and awarded a punishment of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. The order of punishment is dated 17th November, 2008. 8. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal. In the appeal, he raised an additional issue regarding not being afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in the enquiry. The appeal, however, was dismissed. The revision and review, thereafter, was also dismissed by the authorities. 9. In the above background, the learned senior advocate for the appellant submitted before the learned Single Judge that the Page 6 findings of the Enquiry Officer were unsustainable. Two grounds were specifically urged before the learned Single Judge. Firstly, he alleged that there was no consideration as regards whether the alleged misconduct was based on a deliberate act or an accidental mishap. Secondly, he submitted that in the criminal prosecution arising from the selfsame allegation, the criminal investigation agency had submitted a final report. The petitioner, therefore, was entitled to benefit of such final report which discredits the allegations leveled against the writ petitioner. 10. The learned Single Judge considered the legal position that a mere acquittal in a criminal proceeding cannot be a basis for exoneration of an employee in a departmental proceeding. The law contemplates simultaneous conduct of criminal trial and departmental enquiry, though, on different standard of proof. There being no bar to a departmental proceeding and the standard of proof being lighter in the departmental proceeding, there is no scope for a delinquent to claim benefit of an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically. Since no case was made out otherwise to substantiate such claim with reference to the final report, the learned Single Judge found the petitioner’s claim to be unsustainable on this score. Page 7 11. Insofar as the plea regarding the petitioner having sustained the bullet injury as a result of mistake is concerned, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the material on record, found that there was some evidence to support the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to interfere with the findings and dismissed the writ petition. 12. In the present appeal, the learned senior advocate submitted that none of the witnesses who appeared in the enquiry stated about seeing the petitioner firing upon himself. The findings of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, therefore, are hypothetical. The deposition of witnesses regarding the petitioner’s nature being introvert/confused or depressed, ipso facto, cannot be a basis to conclude that the petitioner fired upon himself. He further stated that the petitioner was not allowed an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Lastly, it is submitted that having regard to the unblemished service career of the petitioner prior to the alleged occurrence, a lighter punishment should have been imposed on the petitioner. 13. The learned advocate for the Union of India has sustained the findings of the learned Single Judge and stated that since there was some material on record, the findings of the Enquiry Officer Page 8 founded on the material was rightly not interfered with by the Writ Court in exercise of limited judicial review, in respect of a departmental proceeding. The petitioner, a constable in a disciplined force, was required to be considered with reference to a high degree of integrity, dedication and devotion to duty; and a high degree of discipline. Having regard to the nature of misconduct alleged, there is no scope for any leniency. Such misconduct is unbecoming of a member of the force. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. 15. Before this Court also, the appellant has reiterated the submission that since the final report was submitted in the criminal trial, the appellant should have been extended benefit of the same in the departmental proceeding. In support of his submission, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex. Sqn. Ldr. R. Sood Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 590. He submits that submission of the final report by the police/investigation agency stands on a higher footing than an acquittal. Such being the facts in the present case, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is unsustainable. The decision relied upon by the learned senior advocate for the appellant was rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Page 9 Court in the case of an Air Force personnel who was governed by the provisions of the Air Force Act. A plain reading of the judgment reveals that there were provisions in the Air Force Act pari materia with the provision contained in the Army Act. The relevant provision in this regard has been discussed in paragraph 24 of the judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took notice of the provision that when an offence is triable by a Criminal Court and also by a court-martial, the Act governing the service therein conferred a discretion on the Officer commanding to decide before which Court the proceeding shall be instituted. If the authority decides to have a delinquent tried by the criminal Court and he is acquitted by the criminal Court, then it is to be considered as the end of the matter. Pronouncement of such judicial verdict excludes independent disciplinary action against the delinquent Officer on the same facts. Considering such provisions in the act governing the service of the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an issue arose whether the independent disciplinary action would be considered excluded in the event of a discharge. It is in this context that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that whether the petitioner is discharged or acquitted, the benefit of exclusion of an independent disciplinary enquiry is to be extended to the Officer. Page 10 16. The provisions considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case are not applicable to the present petitioner who is governed by the CISF Act and Rules. No such provision pari materia with the provisions considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was brought to our notice in the present case. We, therefore, find reliance on the decision in the case of Ex. Sqn. Ldr. R. Sood (supra) to be misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. Insofar as the other submission regarding the findings of the Enquiry Officer being unsustainable, we find from perusal of the record, including the petitioner’s statement recorded in the enquiry; and his written statement submitted in opposition to the statement submitted by the Presenting Officer before the Enquiry Officer, that the petitioner did not raise any issue that he was deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He also did not dispute or deny the statements made by the various P.W.s. Petitioner only took a stand that the firing which resulted in the bullet injury was on account of a mistake and not a deliberate action. The point regarding deprivation of an opportunity to cross-examine, therefore, in our opinion was taken in the appeal as an afterthought. We find no substance in such submission raised for the first time in an appeal despite Page 11 opportunity in the enquiry where the petitioner’s statement was recorded and more so, since no such issue was raised in his reply to the statement submitted by the Presenting Officer before the Enquiry Officer. 18. The other submission advanced by the learned senior advocate that there was no specific statement by any eye-witness regarding the petitioner firing upon himself, we find that the Enquiry Officer, while arriving at a conclusion, also did not consider any such statement. he has considered the deposition of seven (7) witnesses, admittedly, none of these witnesses were inimically opposed to the writ petitioner. They were all members of the force; and one was a contingent labour who was residing in the backside of the installation where the watch tower was situated in which the petitioner was standing guard at the time of occurrence. 19. The witnesses corroborate the petitioner’s posting on the watch tower. The statements corroborate the petitioner’s mental state of constantly being in a state of confusion and withdrawn. The statements also corroborate firing having occurred from the petitioner’s SLR. The statements also highlighted the trajectory of the bullet which appears through the petitioner’s body. Considering all these materials and the firing having occurred Page 12 from a rifle and not a pistol, the Enquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion which in our opinion is a sustainable conclusion based on materials in the enquiry. The conclusion is neither manifestly arbitrary nor perverse. Thus, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to interfere with such conclusion recorded in a departmental proceeding. 20. In our opinion, such misconduct by a constable of an Armed Force having regard to high level of integrity, discipline and dedication to duty required from a member of the force constituted a gross misconduct. Continuance of such person in our opinion, is likely to vitiate the atmosphere of discipline, dedication towards duty, otherwise hazardous and likely to adversely effect the members of the force. Thus, there is no scope for leniency being shown to the petitioner in the matter of award of punishment. Still we find that the disciplinary authority, while awarding a punishment of removal from service, has held the punishment not to be a disqualification for employment in Government service. Sufficient leniency has been shown by the disciplinary authority in this regard. 21. The judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner in this regard in the case of Surekha Domaji Bele Vs. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1109 does not come to the aide of the writ Page 13 petitioner. A very basic and stark variance in the factual matrix is that the judgment relied upon was delivered in the case of an employee posted as a lower division clerk in the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The present case involves a member of the disciplined force as we have considered above. We, therefore, find no substance in the submissions regarding the disproportionate punishment being awarded to the writ petitioner/appellant. 22. Giving the appeal our anxious consideration as above, we find no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 23. The appeal is accordingly devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. 24. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 25. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.) Item no. DL 1 Court No. 4 Rohan, A.R.(Ct.)