1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2987 of 2013 1 - Ex Constable No. 814500567 B.N. Majumdar S/o Paresh Mjumdar Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Kohadiy, Main Road Darri, P.S. And Post Korba, Tahsil Korba, Distt. Korba C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs Government Of India New Delhi, Delhi 2 - Director General CISF Air Port Sector, Lodhi Road, Block-13, CGO Complex Head-Office New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - The Dy. Inspector General CISF Ministry Of Home And Affairs, CISF Head Quarters Patna, Pataliputra Bihar, District : Patna, Bihar 4 - The Commandant Cisf Ministry Of Home And Affairs, CISF Unit BCPP Korba, Post Pragati Nagar, Distt. Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Brijesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/ UOI : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 02/04/2025 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the 2 following relief(s) - i. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order, direction, directing the respondents to produce all the relevant record pertaining to the petitioner’s case. ii. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 02/06/2013, 17/01/2005 and 23/03/2004 (Annexure P/3, P/4 and P/5) and order, direction directing the respondents to grant all the consequential retiral benefits of seniority and pay scale etc. iii. Any other relief as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court may also be kindly be issued. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell is that the petitioner joined as Constable in CISF on 18/12/1981 and served at various places. Charge sheet dated 10/10/2003 was issued against the petitioner leveling the following charge - Charge No.1- No.814500567 constable B.N.Majumdar CISF unit, Korba without any prior information and permission of the authorities, he was not present in the evening attendance at 17:00 hrs. on 06/09/2003 which shows his negligence towards his duties and careless conduct. Charge No.2–No.814500567 constable B.N.Majumdar CISF unit, Korba in intoxicated condition entered the control unit at 16:20 hrs. on 06/09/2003 and breached the peace and tranquility which for a member of armed force is a highly undisciplined act and amounts to misconduct. Charge No.3-No.814500567 Constable B.N.Majumdar CISF unit, Korba assigned the night shift at NTPC plant during the period of 21:00 hrs. to 5:00 hrs on 06-07/09/2003 and for 21:00 hrs. to 05:00 hrs. on 07/09/2003 to 08/09/2003 but without any prior information and permission of the authorities, found absent from the duties which indicate his negligence and carelessness towards his duties. Charge No.4-No 814500567 B.N.Majumdar CISF unit, Korba was punished during his services on previous occasions on account of consumption of liquor and on account of absence from duties under the 3 provision of rule 34 and 35 (now amended rule 36 and 37 under CISF regulation, 2001) respectively once and 8 times, but has not been able to mend his ways, which further indicates his habitual indiscipline. 3. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry. On due consideration, vide order dated 23/03/2004 (Annexuer P/5), respondent No.4 compulsorily retired the petitioner with immediate effect. The said order was subject to challenge by the petitioner before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 vide its order dated 17/01/2005 (wrongly mentioned as 17/01/2004) rejected the appeal of the petitioner, against which, the petitioner preferred a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.3167/2005 which was dismissed vide order dated 18/03/2013 as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing revision under Rule 54 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. Thereafter, revision petition was filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 who also affirmed the order passed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 02/06/2013 (Annexure P/3). These three orders are under challenge before this Court. 4. Return has been filed by the respondents inter alia stating that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner was proved by cogent and prudent evidence. Punishment of compulsory retirement from service was awarded by the disciplinary authority after conducting a full fledged departmental enquiry for proven misconduct and undisciplined acts which has also been confirmed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority. The petitioner had already been paid all legitimate pensionary benefits and he is also drawing his pension. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondents 4 could not prove the charges leveled against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the enquiry officer did not appreciate the evidence brought before it in its proper perspective. He further submits that the evidence of defence witnesses have not been considered by the enquiry officer. He further submits that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. He further submits that the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority misdirected themselves in affirming the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner. He prayed that the writ petition may be allowed granting all consequential retiral benefits to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The documents which have been relied upon in the departmental enquiry have been duly served on the petitioner. The petitioner was permitted to cross examine the witnesses in the departmental enquiry. She further submits that the enquiry officer, on due assessment of evidence, gave a categorical finding regarding proof of charges against the petitioner. The findings of the enquiry officer has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and correctly imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. She further submits that all the retiral benefits have been given to the petitioner. He is being paid pension also. The findings of the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority and this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence brought before it. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. The law with regard to interference in the findings of the departmental enquiry is no longer res integra. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. 5 Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 held as under - “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has co-extensive power to re- appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary 6 inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 781], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 9. In the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as below - 24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 25. XXXXXXX 26. XXXXXXX 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of 7 law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 28. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 10. In the light of above principles laid down, on perusal of the documents of the departmental enquiry as well as appended with the petition, it appears that the petitioner was afforded proper opportunity of hearing. He was also served with necessary documents which was relied upon by the enquiry officer. This fact could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The papers of the departmental enquiry also indicate that the petitioner was afforded opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses. With regard to charges against the petitioner, the enquiry officer, in detail, discussed the evidence brought by the departmental witnesses as also defence witnesses and after due assessment of the evidence of those witnesses, gave a finding of proof of charge against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The enquiry officer also discussed in detail the evidence of the departmental witnesses who have deposed against the petitioner. The departmental witnesses were also permitted to be cross-examined 8 by the respondents and the finding so recorded does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the records and this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence brought before the departmental enquiry. 11. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and relying upon the judgment cited above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. Hence, the instant petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.04.08 16:54:23 +0530