- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 32597 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. JAYANNA N S/O. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SINGATAGERE: VILLAGE, KADUR: TQ, CHIKKAMAGALORE: DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577138. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL UNDER MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, CGO COMPLEX, BLOCK-13, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF, DAE/DOS UNDER MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, CGO COMPLEX, BLOCK-13, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF/DOS UNDER MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, ANTARIKSH BHAWAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE. KARNATAKA-560094. 4. COMMANDANT, CISF/SDSC SHAR, SHRIHARIKOTA, ANDRAPRADESH-524124. 5. THE DY. COMMANDANT CISF UNIT, MCF, HASSAN, KARNATAKA-573201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.06.18 10:52:45 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ALL RECORDS FROM RESPONDENTS NO-02, 03 AND 04 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2018, BEARING NO.V.15014/CISG/SHAR/DICS/ MAJOR/J.N./MCF(H)-341 VIDE ANNEXURE-AB, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ORDER DATED 17.04.2018, BEARING NO.11014/DOS/L&R/APP/JN/MCF(H) 18/3989 VIDE ANNEXURE-AC, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2019, BEARING NO.V.15016/CISF/DAE&DOS/L&R/REV/CT-JN/ 2019-12, VIDE ANNEXURE-AD, PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.- V.15014/CISF/SHAR/DICS/MAJOR/J.N/MCF(H)-341, dated 09.01.2018, passed by the respondent No.4 by which, the petitioner was removed from service. He has also challenged an order bearing No.11014/dos/L&R/APP/JN/MCF (H) 18/3989, dated 17.04.2018, passed by the respondent No.3 and to quash the consequent order bearing No.V.15016/CISF/DAE & DOS/L&R/REV/CT-JN/2019-12, dated 02.01.2019, passed by the respondent No.2. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to reinstate him into service with all past and future benefits. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 2. The petitioner contends that he was working as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (henceforth referred to as 'CISF' for short), Master Control Facility (henceforth referred to as 'MCF' for short), Hassan and had discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. Later, he was transferred from Hassan to Chennai. He submitted an application to the Deputy General of Police, CISF dated 20.05.2017 and to the Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi for reconsideration of his transfer. The respondent No.5 had sent a letter containing adverse remarks against the petitioner purportedly to ensure that the grievance of the petitioner about his transfer is not considered. The petitioner contends that he was unaware of the adverse remarks so sent and when it came to his notice, he requested copies of those letters by making an application to Director General of CISF against respondent No.5. He contends that these adverse remarks made by respondent No.5 was designed to harass him by targeting him. 3. When things stood thus, on 31.05.2017, a Constable, Mr.Ram Das Soren who was in a drunken state, abused the petitioner as he refused to give suggestions to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 problem faced by Mr.Soren regarding his ancestral property. The petitioner purportedly reported this to the respondent No.5 and requested for necessary action. However, the petitioner was threatened by the respondent No.5 to withdraw the application against Mr.Ram Das Soren filed on 30.05.2017 but also to withdraw the writ petition filed by him on 23.05.2017 challenging his transfer. 4. He contends that on 02-06-2017, when he was on medical leave, he was returning to his quarters from a nearby shop at the entrance gate, where Mr.Ram Das Soren was detailed. He claimed that Mr. Soren abused him using un- parliamentary words and also assaulted him, resulting in injuries. The petitioner immediately informed the incident to the sub-inspector of police who was in-charge of CISF control room and requested him to make an entry about the incident in the general diary of CISF control room as well as in the message register of CISF. However, the complaint of the petitioner was not entered in the general diary as well as in the message register. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a written complaint to the sub-inspector of police, Hassan, against Mr.Ram Das Soren. It is alleged that Mr.A.K.Gupta and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 Ms.Indu M. Kumar and respondent No.5 influenced the sub- inspector of police and district police control room of Hassan not to register FIR against Mr.Ram Das Soren. The petitioner thereafter lodged a written complaint to Ms.Indu M. Kumar against the respondent No.5 and to take necessary action against Mr.Ram Das Soren and two other officers who supported him indirectly. However, Ms.Indu M. Kumar refused to accept the complaint. The petitioner alleged that Mr.Ram Das Soren and Ms.Indu M. Kumar on coming to know that the petitioner was approaching the police on 02.06.2017 conspired with Mr.A.K.Gupta and twisted the entire incident against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner was responsible for the incident and made a false general diary entry (henceforth referred to as 'GD entry' for short) in the control room at 08:25 a.m. on 02.06.2017, though the telephone call of PW.4 - Mr.Ram Das Soren was received by Mr.A.K.Gupta at 08:40 a.m. and therefore, the GD entry was made to seem as if it was made before petitioner’s complaint. Hence, it is contended that the GD entry was designed to implicate the petitioner. Thereafter, a false report was sent against the petitioner, following which a preliminary enquiry was ordered. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 statements of eyewitnesses were recorded and a preliminary enquiry report was submitted against the petitioner on 02.06.2017. The petitioner contends that charges were framed against him beyond 90 days from the date of suspension. The enquiring authority conducted an enquiry and passed a final order holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Following this, the respondent No.4 passed an order dated 09.01.2018 imposing penalty of removal from service. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 06.02.2018, which was also rejected on 17.04.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Inspector General of CISF i.e, respondent no.2 by filing a revision petition, which was also rejected by order dated 02.01.2019. 5. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner is before the Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire enquiry was based on the GD entry on 02.06.2017 at 08:25 a.m, recorded by PW2. He contends that PW.2, on the other hand, deposed that the telephone call of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 PW.4 was received at 08:40 a.m. Therefore, he contends that the enquiry is based on a fabricated GD entry. He also contends that the petitioner was the first to lodge a complaint over a cell phone and the conversation was recorded but the complaint was not accepted or registered. Therefore, he contends that it was the petitioner who first lodged a complaint against Mr. Soren and in order to overcome it, the GD entry of the complaint of Mr. Soren was made at 08:25 a.m. 7. He contends that before the enquiry, except PW.4 no one else supported the case of the department and PW.4 being the antagonist, his evidence could not be relied upon to punish the petitioner. 8. The petition is opposed by the respondents, who have contended that the petitioner reported at the Unit on 10.06.2013 from CISF Unit, VSSC Thumba. After completion of his tenure of 3 years at the Unit, his name was considered for Inter Unit Transfer - 2017 and was posted to CISF Unit NLC Neyveli in terms of an order dated 25.02.2017. The petitioner was informed to move to the new place of posting. He requested for cancellation/deferment of posting, which was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 examined at all levels and it was found that the petitioner was not fit for retention at the Unit. He thereafter filed W.P.No.20429/2017 before this court for deferment of his transfer on the ground that his mother and wife were unwell. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.06.2017. In order to avoid his transfer and posting, he obtained medical rest with effect from 22.04.2017 to 29.05.2017. He joined duties on 30.05.2017 and again went on medical leave for 06 days with effect from 01.06.2017 to 06.06.2017. During his period of leave, i.e., on 02.06.2017, he got involved in an act of indiscipline by assaulting/scuffling with 'A' shift duty constable Mr.Ram Das Soren, who was detailed for duty at the EWR housing colony. He contends that Mr.Ram Das Soren while protecting himself, suffered minor bruises on his left hand. Mr.Ram Das Soren was replaced by Mr.Sunil Kisku in the said duty post and sent to the Government Hospital, Hassan for medical treatment. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the commandant in terms of an order dated 02.06.2017. The assistant commander of CISF conducted a preliminary enquiry and found a prima facie case against the petitioner. Consequently, the disciplinary enquiry under Rule 36 of CISF - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 Rules 2001, was initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 04.09.2017. After conclusion of the enquiry, the officer submitted his report holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. Accordingly, the punishment of removal from service was imposed vide final order dated 09.01.2018 and the petitioner was struck off from the strength of CISF Unit MCF Hassan as well as CISF on 09.01.2018. The petitioner then filed W.P.No.27013/2017 before this Court to quash the movement order dated 04.06.2017, which was heard and dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2017. 9. It is contended that the department received a complaint from ex-constable/GD Sreekanth R. and his wife Smt.Renjitha S., against the petitioner that he had captured some obscene pictures and videos of Smt.Renjitha S. and was blackmailing her since November 2016. It was alleged that the petitioner had harassed, molested and abused Smt.Renjitha many times and also attempted to outrage her modesty. In view of this complaint, the respondent No.3 directed the CISF Unit SDSC, SHAR to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the complaint. The lady inspector who was nominated for a preliminary enquiry was replaced due to her advanced stage of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 pregnancy by Ms.Indu M. Kumar. While conducting the preliminary enquiry, Ms.Indu M. Kumar directed the petitioner to attend the preliminary enquiry for recording his statement. However, the petitioner neither cooperated nor reported before the enquiry officer. Instead, he filed W.P.No.37667/2017 for change of enquiry officer. This Court had granted an interim stay directing the respondents therein not to precipitate the matter. It is claimed that the preliminary enquiry was conducted and as per the conclusion of the officer, a prima facie case existed against the petitioner. 10. In the meanwhile, another departmental enquiry was launched against the petitioner on the charge of refusing to receive the movement order dated 04.06.2017 as well as official communication dated 26.07.2017 and 31.07.2017. When this departmental enquiry was under progress, he was found guilty of the charges in the previous enquiry and was removed from service, vide order dated 09.01.2018. Therefore, the second departmental enquiry was kept in abeyance vide order of commandant dated 16.01.2018. It is contended that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the punishment of removal, which was considered and rejected on 17.04.2018. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 The petitioner filed a revision against the penalty of removal from service, which was also rejected by the inspector general vide order dated 02.01.2019. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence, as he has indulged in ludicrous behavior affecting the force. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that discipline in the force has to be instilled at any cost. He contends that PW.4 was detailed at the gate and the petitioner had no business to talk to him while he was on duty. He contends that it is the petitioner who picked up a quarrel with PW.4, which ended in fisticuffs and injury to PW.4. He therefore contends that the articles of charge framed against the petitioner were justified. He also contends that there was no conspiracy as alleged by the petitioner in proceeding against him departmentally. He contends that PW.4 had lodged a complaint which was recorded in the logbook and it was thereafter that the petitioner submitted his complaint as a counterblast. He contends that the disciplinary authority felt it appropriate to proceed against the petitioner departmentally and after granting all opportunities, the enquiring authority submitted its report. He contends that the second show cause - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 notice was issued to the petitioner and the disciplinary authority after considering the reply, passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. He contends that since the enquiry is done in accordance with law and the disciplinary authority has followed the procedure provided under the service rules before imposing the major penalty, this court may not exercise jurisdiction to interfere with the order. 12. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 13. Chapter - X of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for penalties and procedures. Rule 32 of the Rules, 2001 enables the disciplinary authority to impose any penalties specified in clause (vi) to (x) of rule 34 by instituting departmental proceedings. 14. The procedure for conduct of departmental proceedings is provided in rule 36 of Rules, 2001. 15. Based on the complaint lodged by PW.4, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner, which reads as follows: - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 "That on 02.06.2017 at about 07:55 hrs CISF No.034430242 Constable/GD Jayanna N of CISF Unit, MCF Hassan who was on medical rest was involved in assault/scuffle with CISF No.071735036 CT/GD Ramdas Soren while he was on "A" shift duty from 05:00 hrs to 13:00 hrs at EWR duty post, Anthriksha Nagar Housing Colony, Hassan by saying that "KYA THUM AJKAL JAYADA UCHALTEHO, MAIN LOCAL HU TUMKO PITWADUNGA AUR MARWADUNGA AUR FAMILY KO BE PITWADUNGA YE KHAYAL RAKHΝΑ AUR TUMARA WHO HAL KARUNGA JO SHIBU N AUR SREEKANTH R KA KIYA HAI" and manhandled him without any provocation, as a result CT/GD Ramdas Soren sustained injury on his left hand forearm. The above act of CISF No.034430242 Const/GD Jayanna N amounts tantamount to gross indiscipline, misconduct and an act of unbecoming a member of Armed Force of the Union. Hence, the charge." 16. The petitioner replied to the articles of charge, denying the allegation of assault on PW.4. On the contrary, he contended that PW.4 picked up a quarrel on 02.06.2017, when he was returning to his staff quarters after picking a packet of milk from a nearby milk booth. He claimed that it was PW.4 who tortured and caused injury and tore his shirt. He claimed that constable Mr.B.Prakash and two MCF employees, namely Mr.Anandhan and Mr.Thimmegowda were eyewitnesses to the incident. He claimed that he immediately contacted the control - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 room through a mobile phone and informed Mr.A.K.Gupta, who was the shift in-charge of the control room about the incident at about 08:09 a.m. However, he claimed that Mr.A.K.Gupta was not responding to the subsequent phone calls. Therefore, he again called him at 08:33 a.m. and spoke to the shift in- charge Mr.A.K.Gupta to know the status of his complaint, as to whether it was entered in the message register or not. Mr.A.K.Gupta told him that he had not entered the complaint in the message register. He claimed that the conversation was recorded on the mobile phone and contended that it was Mr.A.K.Gupta, who deliberately did not register the complaint in the message book. Later, between 08:40 a.m. and 09:10 a.m., when he was at the local police station to lodge a complaint, the station house officer informed the CISF control room and told them that the petitioner wanted to lodge a complaint against PW.4 regarding the assault. He contended that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Ms.Indu M. Kumar, where statements were recorded and following this, an order of suspension was issued and then a movement order was issued transferring him to Neyveli. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 17. Based on this, the disciplinary authority felt it appropriate to proceed with enquiry and appointed an enquiry officer. Before the enquiry officer, the statement of the following witnesses were recorded: Sl. No. Details of PWs PWs/ DW Date of recording 1 CISF No. 924450055, L/Insp/Exe Indu M Kumar Reserve Inspector of CISF Unit MCF Hassan. PW-1 26.10.2017 2 No. 110403887 SI/Exe A.K.Gupata, CISF Unit, MCF Hassan. PW-2 17.10.2017 3 No. 0313510011 ASI/Exe Devanandan, CISF Unit, MCF Hassan. PW-3 24.10.2017 4 No. 071735036 CT/GD Ramdash Soren, CISF Unit, MCF PW-4 16.10.2017 5 No. 140606278 CT/GD Debashish Dutta, CISF Unit, MCF Hassan. PW-5 19.10.2017 6 No. 101850153 CT/GD Dharmendra Kumar, CISF Unit, MCF Hassan. PW-6 20.10.2017 7 No. 994850230 CT/GD B Prakash, CISF Unit, MCF Hassan. PW-7 21.10.2017 8 No. 102720248 Const/GD Sunil Kisku, CISF Unit, MCF Hassan. PW-8 22.10.2017 9 Mr. Thimme Gowda Employee No 140, Technician of MCF Hassan. DW-1 15.11.2017 18. PW.1 - Ms.Indu M. Kumar was the unit head. Though this witness did not see the incident, she visited the spot of the incident soon after she received a call from PW.2. She found that PW.4 had suffered a small fresh cut injury on his left forearm and she claimed that it was probably a nail mark. She deposed that she saw the petitioner going out of the main gate and that he did not make any effort to speak to her. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 However, being the company commander, she directed the petitioner to come to the office and submit a written complaint, but he failed to do so. 19. PW.2 was the shift in-charge of the control room, who deposed that on 02.06.2017, he was detailed as 'A' shift in-charge at the control room. He received a call at 08.05 hours from the petitioner, who told him that PW.4 had assaulted him and misbehaved with him. He deposed that the petitioner asked him to make necessary GD entry, else he would approach the police. PW.2 claimed that he informed the petitioner to wait for a minute so that he could convey the message to his seniors. He deposed that he telephoned PW.4 to enquire as to what happened and that he contacted HC/GD, who directed him to ask PW.1 to call him at the control room. PW.2 stated that he contacted PW.4, who was detailed in ‘A’ shift duty at EWR and enquired with him as to what happened at the duty post. PW.4 replied that the petitioner had misbehaved with him. Later, PW.1 telephoned him and he informed about the messages received till then. As per the direction of PW.1, he informed the petitioner that if he had any grievance, he could submit an application to the unit - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 commander. He deposed that he thereafter received a call from PW.4, who told that the petitioner went to his duty post along with Mr.B.Prakash and abused him. He also told that he had sustained cut injury on his left hand forearm in the assault by the petitioner. PW.4 asked him to make GD entry regarding the incident. Later, he received a phone call from the petitioner, who asked him about the status of the GD entry regarding the incident, for which he replied that PW.1 had informed him to tell the petitioner to submit a complaint to the unit commander. He deposed that PW.1 went to the duty post and returned back to the control room after completing her enquiry. As per her order, Mr.Prasanjit Nath was called from the unit line and detailed at the frisking booth at the main gate. PW.4 was replaced by another constable Mr.Sunil Kisku and thereafter, PW.4 was taken to the hospital. 20. In his cross-examination, PW.2 specifically admitted that he did not make the GD entry of the complaint lodged by the petitioner as per the direction of his seniors. He deposed that he insisted the petitioner go to the control room and submit a written complaint addressed to the unit commander. He deposed that on 02.06.2017, during the ‘A’ shift briefing, he - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 saw PW.4 was in normal condition. When he sought for a feedback about the status of health from the ‘A’ shift duty personnel, he was informed that he was fit for duty. He claimed that when he spoke to PW.4 over phone, he felt his voice trembling. He deposed that after his medical treatment, when PW.4 reached the control room, he was nervous, sweating and had suffered fresh cut mark on his left hand forearm. 21. PW.3 was not an eyewitness to the incident, but he deposed that he was taken by PW.1 to the EWR duty post where PW.4 was detailed for ‘A’ shift duty. He deposed that PW.4 mentioned the incident to PW.1 and that he had sustained a cut mark injury on his left hand forearm. He alleged that Mr.B.Prakash, who went along with the petitioner, also used filthy language while addressing PW.4. The evidence of this witness was of no assistance, as he was not an eyewitness to the incident. 22. PW.4 deposed that on 31.05.2017 he met the petitioner on the way to Anthriksh Nagar and that the petitioner was busy on his mobile phone. He greeted the petitioner and the petitioner replied aggressively and abused him for - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 disturbing him while he was speaking to someone. He claimed that from that day onwards, he stopped talking to the petitioner. He deposed that on 02.06.2017, he was detailed for ‘A’ shift duty at EWR duty post at Anthriksh Nagar. At about 07:50 hours, the petitioner while going through the main gate, stared at him. However, he did not respond to him, after 5 minutes the petitioner entered the main gate with milk packets in his hand and went to his quarter. The petitioner who was on medical rest, thereafter came to the duty post and sat beside him. He deposed that the petitioner spoke about the skirmish on 31.05.2017. He claimed that he told petitioner "Namaskar Karna Bhi Gunah Hai Kya, Aisa Bhat Hai Tho Mai Nhi Bolunga." He alleged that the petitioner threatened him, stating that "Mein Tumko Dekhlunga." Later, he abused him in filthy language. The petitioner went out of the gate again after 5 minutes brought Mr.B.Prakash along with him to the duty post and stared at him. When he questioned why he was staring at him, the petitioner replied "Tum Apne Aaukath Mei Raho, Kyat Um Ajkal Jyada Uchalteho" and pushed him. When he tried to stop the petitioner, he suffered cut mark injury on his left forearm. He deposed that he told the petitioner not to behave - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 like that or he would report to the control room. The petitioner allegedly threatened him and thereafter, he along with Mr.B.Prakash went out from Anthriksh Nagar. He claimed that he was petrified and therefore sat down in the duty post. After few minutes, he received a call from PW.2 and he narrated the whole incident to him. PW.2 informed him that the petitioner had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint. He claimed that PW.2 asked him as to why he did not inform him about the incident, to which he replied that he was afraid of the petitioner as he lodged similar complaints against one Mr.Sreekanth R. and Mr.Shibu. 23. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Mr.B.Prakash went out of Anthriksh Nagar on 02.06.2017 at about 06.30 hours. He deposed that he had no enmity with the petitioner but claimed that the petitioner got a transfer order from MCF, Hassan to NLC Neyveli and that he did not wish to report at the new post. Therefore, he played a trick with him. He deposed that he was assaulted by the petitioner and that he suffered bleeding injury. He deposed that when the QRT team reached the duty post, the petitioner was present at the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 location and that he did not make any effort to speak to PW.1 but went through the main gate. 24. The aforesaid evidence shows that there was a scuffle between the petitioner and PW.4. However, there is no material to pinpoint as to who was responsible for it. If PW.4 was assaulted by the petitioner, PW.4 must have lodged a complaint then and there. It is clear that PW.2 deliberately did not record the complaint of the petitioner in the general dairy but wantonly ante timed the complaint of PW.4. Therefore, the evidence before the inquiring authority did not establish that the petitioner was solely responsible for the altercation. 25. PW.5 was a part of the QRT team, which was taken by PW.1 to the EWR gate where PW.4 was detailed. The deposition of this witness does not assist in determining whether the petitioner was the one who started the altercation. PW.6 was also a member of the QRT team and his evidence is also of no use as he was not an eyewitness. 26. PW.7 (Mr.B.Prakash) deposed that on 02.06.2017 at about 06.40 hours, he reported at Unit line of MCF, Hassan to attend PT. After completion of PT, he had refreshment at a - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 tea stall and went to his quarters at Anthriksh Nagar. When he reached the main gate of Anthriksh Nagar at about 07:55 hours, he heard a loud voice and saw PW.4 was shouting at the petitioner. When he asked PW.4 as to what had happened, he replied that he should not interfere in the matter. Thereafter, PW.4 turned at the petitioner and abused him in filthy language and held the petitioner by his shirt collar. He stated that PW.4 questioned the petitioner "Kya Aap Commandant Hai Kya." The petitioner replied that his fate was not good and requested him to allow him to go to the quarters. He deposed that other than him, two employees were present at the spot. He deposed that PW.4 punched the petitioner and that Mr.Thimmegowda and Mr.Anandhan were very near to the spot. Mr.Thimmegowda told PW.4 not to use filthy language, as it was a family quarter area. At that time the petitioner asked him for his mobile phone so that he could convey the message to the control room. PW.4 then commented "Don’t estimate me like Shibu N go and complain anywhere, wherever you want." In his cross- examination, he deposed that he saw the incident and that the petitioner neither manhandled PW.4 nor used any vulgar words against him, but it was PW.4 who manhandled the petitioner. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 He deposed that he did not see any cut mark on anybody's hand. He claimed that at about 09.40 hours the QRT vehicle departed from the EWR gate and the petitioner tried to stop the vehicle, but PW.1 sped off as if she did not see him. He deposed that he went to his quarters to bring money so that he could take the petitioner to the hospital. However, when he came to the spot, he did not see the petitioner and when he enquired with his mother, she told him that the petitioner had gone to the hospital with his wife. This witness deposed that PW.4 was in an angry mood and abused the petitioner, but the petitioner exercised restraint and did not retaliate. 27. A perusal of the above evidence establishes the fact that there was an altercation between the petitioner and PW.4. The only eyewitness was PW.7, who claimed that PW.4 was the one who intimidated the petitioner. PW.8 was another witness who did not see the incident happen but claimed that he was informed about the incident by PW.4. Therefore, this evidence is also of no use. 28. Mr.Thimmegowda was examined in defence who deposed that on 02.06.2017 he saw three persons talking with - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 each other. However, he could not understand what they spoke. He deposed that there was no scuffle between them. He claimed that he went to a nearby shop and purchased milk and returned to his quarter. The evidence of this witness is also of no assistance. 29. Though several exhibits were marked on either side, there is no clear evidence to justify that the petitioner was responsible for the altercation. On the contrary, the evidence of PW.7 shows that it was PW.4 who started the altercation and that it was he who manhandled the petitioner. The very fact that the petitioner tried to lodge a complaint with the control room, which was not recorded and later a complaint of PW.4 was recorded gives an impression that the respondents have tried to cook up documents. 30. Though this Court is conscious of the restraints on the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters of disciplinary proceedings, yet this Court would not hesitate to exercise jurisdiction when the proceedings have been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice or when the enquiring authority of the - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 disciplinary authority has failed to notice relevant evidence or misconstrued the evidence on record or when the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. 31. In the case on hand, the disciplinary authority has proceeded on the assumption that it was the petitioner who started the altercation, though there is no tangible evidence. The evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5, PW.6 and PW.8 was of no assistance to return a finding of fact that it was the petitioner who misbehaved with PW.4. PW.7 was the only witness who was present at the spot when the alleged incident took place. PW.7 did not support the case of the department but claimed that it was PW.4 who manhandled and abused the petitioner. Therefore, there was no evidence to hold that the petitioner was responsible for the incident. The disciplinary authority merely referred to the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 and took into consideration their evidence that PW.4 was shaken and sweating due to the incident, to come to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who was responsible for the altercation. It may be that the petitioner and PW.4 were found at the duty gate where PW.4 was detailed, but none of - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 them have given a clear picture of the incident and both of them have tried to claim that they were innocent and pointed fingers at each other. When PW.7 was the lone eyewitness, the disciplinary authority committed an error in holding that the petitioner and PW.7 had fabricated the story. In order to arrive at this conclusion, the disciplinary authority held that PW.7 must have taken the petitioner to a nearby hospital as he was having a motorcycle at the spot itself and that he ought to have pacified the situation or informed the control room about the incident. This reasoning of the disciplinary authority is highly absurd and the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority on this assumption is highly preposterous. 32. Even if it is assumed that there was an altercation between the petitioner and PW.4, without there being real proof as to who was responsible for it, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed a major penalty such as removal from service. It is now well settled that removal from service should be resorted to in the rarest of the rare cases, when continuation of the delinquent employee is injurious to the force. Removal of an employee from the force for a scuffle unrelated to work is thoroughly disproportionate. The - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:14668 WP No. 32597 of 2019 disciplinary authority ought to have imposed a lesser penalty so as to discipline the petitioner and to deter him from indulging in similar such behavior. 33. In that view of the above, the following order is passed: ORDER i. This writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 dismissing the services of the petitioner is set aside. The punishment imposed by the respondent No.4 is modified to reduction of one increment without cumulative effect. Consequently, subject to (iii) below, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including retirement benefits. iii. The petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of the wages from the date of his termination till the date of his retirement. This shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ,BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38