1 2025:CGHC:23822 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 24.03.2025 Order passed on 13.06.2025 WPS No. 2898 of 2024 1 - Anupam Devnath S/o Shri Govind Devnath Aged About 33 Years Constable Gd Cisf Unit Secl Bilaspur, R/o Pragati Nagar, Post Office Dipka, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Director General Central Industrial Security Force Headquarters, Block No. 13 C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2 - Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force Central Sector Headquarter Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, Secl Unit Bilaspur Headquarter,bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Commandant Central Industrial Security Force Secl Unit Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) Petitioner in-person : Mr. Anupam Devnath For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General along with Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. The petitioner has been serving as a Constable/GD under the respondents since 29.11.2013 with dedication and without any Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 record of serious misconduct. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him, to which he submitted a reply on 14.12.2023. However, without due consideration of his response, Respondent No. 4 passed an order of removing the petitioner on 26.04.2024, in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner, being the sole breadwinner for his wife, two minor daughters, and elderly parents, is now facing severe financial and emotional hardship. Hence, the petitioner seeks the intervention of this Hon’ble Court to ensure justice seeking the following reliefs : - “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately reinstate the petitioner in service and set aside the removal order dated 26.04.2024 Annexure-P/2. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to pass an order to re investigate the allegation made impartially by the Central Investigation Committee, Ministry of Home Affairs. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent to immediate transfer the petitioner to home zone. 10.4 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been serving in the rank of Constable/GD since 29.11.2013 and is subordinate to the respondents. During the course of his service, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and four charges of indiscipline and misconduct have been framed against 3 him, as detailed below: Charge 01: Regarding the home zone transfer of petitioner, the latest medical documents pertaining to his treatment/examination were requested from the unit under letter No. E- 38018/27/2023/Estha-II/3749 dated 06.10.2023 from Force Headquarters New Delhi and letter No. E-38018/CISF/G.K./Carminal/03/2023- 8001 dated 09.10.2023 from CISF Main Division Headquarters, Bhilai. In compliance, this office issued letters No. E-38014/CISF/SECL (V)/Admin/2023- 6523 dated 06.10.2023, 6560 dated 10.10.2023, and 6909 dated 23.10.2023, directing the petitioner to submit the required medical documents at the earliest. The petitioner refused to receive these letters and alleged repeated harassment by the department. This behavior amounts to disregard of lawful orders, indiscipline, and inappropriate conduct unbecoming of a disciplined force member. Charge 02: Without following the proper channels or informing the officers in the unit, the petitioner sent complaint letters directly via email on 12.10.2023 and 13.10.2023 to Force Headquarters New Delhi and Central Sector Headquarters Bhilai against the unit administration. An inquiry conducted by this office found no merit in the allegations. The act of petitioner making baseless and fabricated accusations reveals a corrupt mindset, indiscipline, and has caused unnecessary hindrance in the administrative work of the unit, reflecting inappropriate conduct. Charge 03: Inspector/Works Ashok Kumar Dubey was appointed as Inquiry 4 Officer for the preliminary inquiry related to the complaint sent by the petitioner, under office letter No. E-42099/KSUB/SECL (B)/BHAMPA/PRA.JO./2023-1412 dated 06.11.2023. The petitioner was directed to join the inquiry and record his statement but refused to accept the letter and stated he would not participate. This refusal constitutes gross indiscipline, disregard for lawful orders, and inappropriate conduct for a member of a disciplined armed force. Charge 04: A review of the service records of petitioner shows previous punishments, including one major and three minor penalties for indiscipline. Despite these punishments, the petitioner has not improved his conduct, indicating a habitual tendency toward indiscipline. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 14.12.2023. However, without due consideration of this reply, Respondent No. 04 issued an order dated 26.04.2024 removing the petitioner from service. This dismissal has come as a severe blow to the petitioner, who is the sole breadwinner of his family comprising his wife, two young daughters, and elderly parents, all of whom are dependent on him for their livelihood. The petitioner maintains that he has never committed any serious misconduct or criminal act during his entire tenure of service that could justify such an extreme punishment. Consequently, he filed an appeal against the dismissal order on 28.04.2024 before Respondent No. 03, but as of yet, no relief has been granted, and the removal order remains in effect. The action taken against him is actuated by malice and retaliation, as he had 5 previously approached the Hon’ble Court against certain service- related injustices such as being compelled to work 12-hour shifts without proper weekly leave. In those matters, the Hon’ble Court had passed favorable orders in support of the petitioner. The current dismissal, therefore, appears to be motivated by a desire to punish the petitioner for asserting his legal rights. As a result of these developments, the petitioner is undergoing significant physical and mental hardship, which has compelled him to approach this Hon’ble Court in search of justice and appropriate relief. 3. Petitioner in-person appeared before this Court and submits that he has been serving with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the capacity of Constable/GD since 29.11.2013 with an unblemished service record, marked by diligence, sincerity, and dedication. However, he has been subjected to persistent administrative harassment, victimization, and retaliatory action by the respondents, culminating in the arbitrary dismissal order dated 26.04.2024, issued by Respondent No. 4, without affording me any opportunity of personal hearing, and in blatant disregard of detailed reply dated 14.12.2023, thereby violating the principles of audi alteram partem and natural justice. It is submitted that he has consistently discharged his duties with integrity and have never been found guilty of any misconduct warranting such a harsh penalty. His service record is devoid of any serious infraction, and yet He has been falsely implicated and dismissed without due 6 process. It is further submitted that he preferred an appeal dated 28.04.2024 before Respondent No. 3 against the impugned dismissal order, which remains pending without any interim protection or decision, thereby aggravating the prejudice caused to him. It is pertinent to submit that the impugned action is not only procedurally flawed but is also motivated by malice and vengeance, as he has previously exercised his legal rights by filing several petitions before this Hon’ble Court, including WPS 6219/2021, WPS 4329/2022, WPS 7504/2022, and WPS 244/2023, seeking relief against illegal working conditions such as denial of weekly offs and imposition of excessive 12-hour duty shifts, in which this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to grant relief in his favour. Instead of addressing his legitimate grievances, the respondents have engaged in a pattern of vindictive conduct, including unjustified lowering of my ACR ratings, arbitrary salary deductions, denial of duties appropriate to his training and medical fitness, and initiation of multiple baseless departmental actions, all without due process or objective inquiry. These actions have not only affected his career progression but have also severely impacted his dignity and mental well-being. Repeated requests and representations made to senior officers, including the DIG, IG, and DG, were either ignored or met with silence, further demonstrating the mala fide intent behind the disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal order. It is further submitted that he is the sole earning member of his family and bear the responsibility of supporting his wife, two minor daughters, and 7 aged parents. The impugned dismissal has resulted in acute financial distress and irreparable hardship to his dependents. He assert that the penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate and devoid of any substantive basis. It is not merely an issue of service law but one that strikes at the very core of fairness, equity, and justice. He place his faith in the impartiality and constitutional mandate of this Hon’ble Court and humbly pray that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned dismissal order dated 26.04.2024, direct my reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. He solemnly affirm that the facts stated herein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief, and he respectfully seek justice from this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by the petitioner and would submit that the instant writ petition, filed by the petitioner seeking reinstatement and quashing of the removal order dated 26.04.2024, is not maintainable in law, having been preferred without exhausting the statutory remedies of appeal and revision as provided under the CISF Rules, 2001. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to participate in the inquiry, defend himself, submit evidence, and cross-examine 8 witnesses. However, he willfully chose non-cooperation at every stage, refusing to receive official communications, declining to submit required documents pertaining to his transfer request, objecting without justification to the competence of inquiry officer, and failing to comply with procedural directions such as deposition of mobile phone to maintain the sanctity of the proceedings. Despite such defiance, the Inquiry Officer ensured adherence to due process, and upon completion of a fair and impartial inquiry, found the charges to be duly established. The Disciplinary Authority, upon a comprehensive evaluation of the record, rightly imposed the penalty of removal from service considering the continued misconduct by the petitioner and adverse impact on the discipline and decorum of the force. The subsequent appeal filed by petitioner was adjudicated and rejected by the Appellate Authority for want of any new or compelling grounds. The petitioner has, even thereafter, failed to avail the statutory remedy of revision. In the absence of any violation of legal, statutory, or constitutional rights, and no procedural impropriety having been demonstrated, the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wholly unwarranted. The petition, being devoid of merit and filed in contravention of settled legal principles, deserves to be dismissed in limine. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the documents placed on record with utmost 9 circumspection. 6. The petitioner, a Constable/GD in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), has approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order of removal dated 26.04.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4. 7. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner has served since 29.11.2013 and has not been found guilty of any grave criminal misconduct. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him based on four charges, primarily related to procedural conduct, communication, and alleged non-cooperation. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 14.12.2023 to the charge memo. However, the Disciplinary Authority passed the removal order dated 26.04.2024 without adequately considering the reply. The petitioner, being the sole breadwinner of a family consisting of his wife, two minor daughters, and aged parents, now faces dire hardship. It is also brought to the Court's attention that the petitioner had earlier successfully litigated against working condition violations in WPS 6219/2021, WPS 4329/2022, WPS 7504/2022, and WPS 244/2023, which potentially rendered him vulnerable to retaliatory action by the department. 8. Upon perusal of the punishment order, it appears that the petitioner was penalized by the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, SECL, Bilaspur, on the grounds of alleged misconduct. The said misconduct includes deliberate disobedience of orders issued by higher authorities and refusal to acknowledge or receive official 10 notices and communications. When directed to submit documents pertaining to the medical treatment of his family members, the petitioner, instead of complying, stated that such documents had already been submitted and alleged that the authorities were harassing him by repeatedly demanding the same documents. It is also noted that the petitioner had previously been subjected to disciplinary actions, including both minor and major penalties, specifically, the stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner claims that the authorities are biased against him and inclined to pass adverse orders. 9. A review of the documents reveals that the petitioner made certain allegations and, in that regard, submitted a representation directly to the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), which he ought to have routed through the proper channel. Another charge, which formed the basis of the departmental enquiry (DE), pertained to his deliberate failure to receive official notices and his non- cooperation in the enquiry proceedings. Such conduct was found to be willful and indicative of indiscipline. Given that the petitioner is a member of the CISF, an armed force where strict discipline is paramount, his actions were construed as deliberate insubordination and deemed unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. The departmental enquiry also considered his past conduct, which includes the imposition of one major and three minor punishments. Despite these prior disciplinary actions, the petitioner has continued to exhibit indisciplined behavior, 11 reinforcing the pattern of repeated misconduct. 10. Considering the overall facts and the nature of the charges against the petitioner, it appears to be a situation where both the petitioner and the authorities have made combat allegations. However, no grave misconduct, as contemplated under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, appears to have been committed by the petitioner. With respect to the previous punishments, a review of the earlier allegations and penalties indicates that the misconduct in those instances was not of such severity as to justify the removal of petitioner from service at present. The misconduct alleged by the respondents is not of such a grave nature as to warrant the extreme penalty of removal from service. Upon careful examination of the charges leveled against the petitioner, it is evident that the alleged misconduct primarily concerns the non- receipt of letters or communications from the respondent department. The respondents have not demonstrated that the actions of petitioner constitute misconduct of a degree so serious that removal from service is the sole available disciplinary measure. It appears that both the petitioner and the department have escalated the matter unnecessarily, resulting in the firm stance of petitioner being construed as misconduct. The nature of the alleged misconduct could have been adequately addressed through the issuance of a warning notice; however, no such corrective measure was taken. While the scope for reviewing the findings of a departmental enquiry is generally limited, it is well- 12 established that the quantum of punishment imposed may be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly where the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct. 11. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para 18 as under :- “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Subrata Nath, reported in (2022) SCC Online 1617 has 13 observed in para 21 that : “21. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran [(2015) 2 SCC 610]. If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor.” (emphasis supplied) 13. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and ors. Vs. Constable Sunil Kumar, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 14 622 has observed in para 11 and 13 as under :- “11……… In Surinder Kumar [CRPF v. Surinder Kumar, [(2011) 10 SCC 244] while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [Union of India v. R.K. Sharma, (2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 767] that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution. 13. …...As per the settled position of law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved, the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. …” 14. In view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner for the alleged misconduct appears to be disproportionate. Accordingly, while this Court does not interfere with the impugned order to the extent that it pertains to the finding of misconduct, it does interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed. This Court holds that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the 15 nature of the misconduct alleged, which is not of such grave nature as to warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal. 15. Consequently, the punishment of removal from service, as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority, is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to reconsider the quantum of punishment and to impose a lesser penalty, other than removal from service, in accordance with the applicable CISF Rules. The Disciplinary Authority shall pass appropriate orders within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part, in the terms indicated above. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge