2025:CGHC:10540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 6665 of 2016 Kirtipal Singh, S/o Yashpal Pawar, aged about 30 Years, R/o Gali No. 07, Ganga Vihar, R.C.C. Road, Post New Mandi, District Mujaffarnagar Uttar Pradesh, Presently Residing At C I S F Unit B S P, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, New Delhi,Delhi 2. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, Block No. 13, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 3. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Senior Commandant, Administration, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, 5. Assistant Commandant Administration, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh, --- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Vaishali Jaiswani, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General of India. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 17/04/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief : ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.21 18:45:27 +0530 -2- (10.1) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned orders dated (Annexure P/1, P/2 & P/3). (10.2)To issue a command directing the respondents to call for the records pertaining to the present petition. (10.3) Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstance of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector, CISF, Bhilai Steel Plant at the relevant point of time. On 06.09.2015, the respondent No.5 issued a charge sheet against the petitioner proposing to conduct an enquiry under Rule 37 of Central Industrial Security Force, Rules 2001 alleging that without any intimation to the Higher Official’s, he appointed Assistant Sub Inspector - B.L. Palango and posted himself at Plant No.1 (Sayantra) as Shift Incharge whose intimation was not granted to the Assistant Commandant. It is further alleged that he was present outside the Boriya Gate on 19/06/2015 from 15:00 hours to 16:30 hours after completion of the duty. During his presence outside the Boriya Gate five unit nuts amounting to Rs.65,00,000/- (Sixty Five Lakhs) taken out unauthorized from the H.S.CL. Gate (Boriya Gate) and no information was received by him which goes to show cross-negligence and violation of the order from the Higher Official’s. Further case is that after receiving the charge-sheet the petitioner submitted reply on 11/10/2015 (Annexure – P/5). The allegation in the charge-sheet is refuted by the petitioner in the reply and it has been observed that the charges has been leveled upon the petitioner is without any basis and substance. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority respondent No.5 vide impugned order dated 12/11/2015 (Annexure-P/1) imposed penalty of downgrading one increment without cumulative effect against the petitioner. Against this order the petitioner preferred statutory appeal under Rule 46 of CISF Rules, 2001 before the Respondent No. 4. The Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 4) vide it’s order dated 13.01.2016 (Annexure P/2) dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner preferred a revision under Rule 54 of CISF, Rules 2001 before the respondent No.3, which -3- has also dismissed vide Annexure - P/3 dated 29/02/2016. Against which challenging this three orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for purpose of holding the petitioner guilty of the alleged charge, no documents or statements of the witnesses were provided to the petitioner along-with the charge-sheet, therefore it is case of no evidence and the impugned orders have been passed in colorable exercise of power. She further submits that while imposing the minor penalty of downgrading of pay without cumulative effect, the respondents have not adhered to the procedure prescribed under rule 37 (1) and 37 (2) of CISF Rule, 2001 as downgrading of pay will adversely effect the pension of the petitioner. No enquiry was done by the respondents after filing of reply by the petitioner, as such no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of O. K. Bhardwaj vs Union of India and others, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of N. Subramanian vs The Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force and another, passed in WP No.34587/2005, decided on 01.04.2009. She also placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in case of Ankur Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WPS No. 3829/2016 dated 05/03/2024 where the identical was involved and the writ petition is allowed. Therefore, she prays that the impugned order Annexure P/1 to Annexure P/3 may be quashed and the writ petition may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the petitioner was given opportunity to represent against the charge framed against him and he availed it and the reply submitted by him was duly considered while imposing the punishment. On the basis of the documentary evidence the Disciplinary Authority found him guilty of the charge and imposed the penalty of reduction of pay of one increment for a period of one year and as such the minor penalty was imposed. There was no -4- need to conduct the Departmental Enquiry as the representation/reply of the petitioner was duly considered. All the impugned orders are passed after taking into consideration the relevant material and reply of the petitioner. Therefore, he prays that this Court may not interfere with impugned orders and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the respondents. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working on the post of Sub-Inspector with the respondent and vide impugned order dated 12/11/2015, the Disciplinary Authority after issuing the charge-sheet has imposed a minor penalty of downgrading of the penalty of reduction of pay of one increment for a period of 01 year without cumulative effect and the statutory appeal and revisions filed against such an order was also stood dismissed vide Annexure P/2 (13/01/2016) and Annexure- P/3 (29/02/2016). From the record it appears that the charge- sheet was issued against the petitioner on 06/09/2015 and petitioner filed it’s reply on 18/06/2015 vide Annexure P/6 and thereafter the punishment to the petitioner was imposed. From the perusal of the charge-sheet the charges of cross negligence and not following the order of the Higher Official’s is leveled against the petitioner. It has further been leveled that he appointed Assistant Sub Inspector - B.L. Palango and placed himself on duty under Plant No.1 (Sayantra) as Shift Incharge. The said fact was not intimated to the Assistant Commandant. It has been further alleged that when he was standing outside the H.S.C.L Gate (Boriya Gate), five unit nuts amounting to Rs.65,00,000/- (Sixty Five Lakhs) were taken out illegally from Boriya Gate and no information was received. But from the perusal of the charge it doesn’t appear that from the document to that effect or details of any witnesses to substantiate the charge is mentioned in the charge- sheet or within the evidence supplied to the petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent took shelter of Rule 37 of the CISF Rules, 2001 which reads as under:- -5- “37. Procedure for imposing minor penalties - (1) No order imposing any of minor penalties specified in rule 34 shall be made except after - (a) informing the enrolled member in writing of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he wishes to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry, if the disciplinary authority so desires, in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (22) of rule 36; (c) taking the representation, if any submitted by the enrolled member under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; and (d) recording the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour;” (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding 3 years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub- rule (3) to (22) of Rule 36 before making any order imposing on the enrolled member of the Force any such penalty. (3) The records of the proceedings in such cases shall include - (i) a copy of the intimation to the enrolled member so charged of the proposal to take action against him; ii) a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; -6- (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the enquiry, if any; (v) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (vi) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of O. K. Bhardwaj (supra) held in para 3 as under:- “3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with” 9. The High Court of Madras in the matter of N. Subramanian (supra) held in paras 11 & 12 as under:- “11. In fact a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in W.P.No. 21954 of 2004 dated 11.12.2006 (Jamil Akhtar v. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Industrial Security Force, 6th Reserve Batallion, Arakkonam & others) has also quashed the impugned order of punishment on the ground of non holding of enquiry in spite of a specific request made by the employee in that regard. 12. In our considered view, an enquiry is contemplated in case where a delinquent refutes the charge and by such refutal, the employer is -7- duty bound to prove the charge levelled against the delinquent by letting in evidence. This is more so when the delinquent employee seeks for such an enquiry in his explanation as well.” 10. Relying on the above judgment, this Court with identical sets of fact in case of Ankur Pratap Singh (supra) held in paragraph 11 as under:- “In light of the above decision, it is clear that no documents or list of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner along with the charge sheet (Annexure- P/5) and even the petitioner filed detailed reply, but the Disciplinary Authority without considering the same straightway passed punishment order of imposing minor penalty. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority also did not consider this aspect. Thus it is clear that all these proceedings are against principle of natural justice, as such the impugned orders are not sustainable Consequently, the impugned orders dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure- P/1), 13.01.2016 (Annexure-P/2) and 29.02.2016 (Annexure-P/3) are hereby set aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed ahead, if they so desire, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the relevant documents.” 11. The factual senario of this case is almost identical to the case of Ankur Pratap Singh (supra). 12.Learned Counsel for the respondent try to persuade the Court that the power is wasted the Disciplinary Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner and imposed minor penalty. However, this Court is not impressed with the -8- submission made by the respondent, as such the charge-sheet has already been issued. 13.In the considered opinion of this Court, the proceedings for initiation of Departmental Enquiry is already taken place, therefore relying upon the judgment cited supra, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot stand and therefore Annexure P/1, Annexure P/2 and Annexure P/3 is hereby quashed and is hereby set aside. 14.With above observation, this writ petition is allowed . 15.All pending applications are disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish