2025:JHHC:31126-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 300 of 2024 Subrata Biswas, aged about 59 years son of Late Sunil Kumar Biswas, resident of Quarter No. 174, Block-5, Gandhinagar, P.O.- Sunday Bazar, P.S.- Gandhinagar, Dist:- Bokaro, Jharkhand .... ... Appellant Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affair, Government of India, having its office at North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, P.O. P.S+ Dist:- New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affair, Government of India, having its office at North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, P.O.P.S + Dist:- New Delhi 3. Director General of C.I.S.F, having its office at Block No-13, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003, P.O+ P.S+ Dist:- New Delhi. 4. The Inspector General of C.I.S.F, Eastern Sector Ranchi, Government of India, having its office at Tiril, P.O + P.S- Dhurwa, Dist:-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of C.I.S.F, East Zone Head Quarter Patna, Government of India, having its office at Boring Road, P.O + P.S-Patliputra, Dist:-Patna, Bihar. 6. The Deputy Inspector General of C.I.S.F, having its office at C.C.L Hqrs. Darbhanga House, P.O. + P.S. Gonda, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 7. The Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F Unit C.C.L. Kargali, Government of India, having its office at P.O-Phusro, P.S-Bermo, Dist:-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 8. The Commandant, C.I.S.F Unit ATPP, Anpara, having its office at P.O-Anpara, P.S- Anpara, Dist:-Sonbhadra, Utter Pradesh. 9. The Assistant Commandant, C.I.S.F Unit RHPP, Pipri, having its office at P.O-Pipri, P.S- Pipri, Dist:-Sonbhadra, Utter Pradesh. … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondents: Mrs. Niki Sinha, C.G.C. --------- 2025:JHHC:31126-DB 07/Dated: 08.10.2025 1. The instant appeal appears to have been filed solely for the purpose of satisfying the appellant’s ego or else he would not indulge in such luxury litigation, given the fact that only a day’s salary has been ordered to be forfeited that too after full-fledged departmental inquiry. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant was serving in the CISF was asked to report for duty at Allahabad on 29.11.2017 and had been serving at Pipri at that point of time. The petitioner did not choose to report for duty on the said date and conveniently took the train at 03:00 PM on 29.11.2017, the day of his reporting and chose to appear before the authority only on 30.11.2017 which led to the initiation of departmental proceedings for dereliction of duty. 3. The distance between Pipri and Allahabad is about 240 KM and it is not in dispute that public transport is available, which connects both the stations. 4. Be that as it may be, it is not in dispute that the petitioner till 03:00 PM on 29.11.2017 did not even choose to move out from Pipri and proceeded thereafter for reporting at Allahabad only in the later part of the day. It clearly goes to indicate that the petitioner was totally defiant and has therefore, rightly been imposed the punishment. The court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the petitioner belongs to disciplined force and was thus required to maintain utmost discipline as rightly held by the learned writ Court by reporting in time. 2025:JHHC:31126-DB 5. The petitioner being a Government servant was expected to discharge his duties with complete integrity which would take in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values [Refer to Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610]. 6. In needs to reiterate that the public servants have to act strictly in the four corners of law and all the activities are governed by rules, regulations, instructions etc. Discipline is the hallmark of every employee and in case, an employee is not ready to subject himself/herself to discipline, then obviously, he not only invites the wrath of his employer but is also liable to be proceeded at least departmentally. Every employee must be loyal and disciplined towards his employer, which the petitioner has failed to do so. 7. The petitioner is not an ordinary Government servant but is a member of a disciplined force who has to exhibit a much higher level of discipline than an ordinary Government servant as has repeatedly been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [Ref to Jai Singh Vs. UOI and others, (2006) 9 SCC 717, Secy to Government and others Vs. A.C.J., Britto (1997) 3 SCC 387]. 8. The learned writ Court after going through the materials on record has held that no case was made out for interference for the following facts and reasons:- 2025:JHHC:31126-DB “(I). The findings of the enquiry officer were taken into consideration and the punishment order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority assigning cogent and valid reasons. The same was affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority, which requires no interference. (II) Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any procedural laches in the proceedings rather a fullfledged enquiry was conducted following the provisions of natural justice by extending the petitioner ample opportunity of being heard. (III) Admittedly, when the order of punishment was affirmed upto the Revisional Authority, this Court refrains itself from interfering with the same.” 9. Lastly and more importantly, we find that the departmental proceedings have been conducted strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of not only hearing but even leading evidence to petitioner and only thereafter has the order of punishment been imposed. 10. In such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned writ Court. 11. Consequently, the instant letters patent appeal is dismissed. 12. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) NAFR (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 08/10/2025 Sharda/MM Cp.02