1 2025:CGHC:59046-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 891 of 2025 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 Unit Secl Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus Anupam Devnath S/o Shri Govind Devnath Aged About 34 Years Constable Gd Cisf Unit Secl Bilaspur, R/o Pragati Nagar, Post OfÏce Dipka, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.12.06 11:23:37 +0530 2 For Appellants : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI For Respondent(s) : Shri Anupam Devnath, Respondent in person Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.12.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2023, an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application. Delay of 68 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2898/2024 whereby and whereunder the writ petition of the writ petitioner/respondent herein has been allowed in part. For the sake convenience the parties are referred as per their status in the writ Court. 4. Case of the writ petitioner is that during the course of his service on the post of constable/GD, a departmental enquiry 3 was contemplated against him and four charges of indiscipline and misconduct have been framed. In the said proceedings the petitioner submitted a reply. However, according to the petitioner, without considering his reply, passed the removal order. Further case of the petitioner is that he has never committed any serious misconduct or criminal act during his entire career. Against the order of removal, he preferred an appeal which has been rejected. Subsequently, he approached this Court by filing WPS No. 2898/2024. The said petition has been allowed in part by the order impugned observing thus:- “ xxx xxx xxx 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 nature of the misconduct 4 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.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondents would submit that the learned Single Judge has passed the order impugned without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in its true perspective. He would submit that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law and by observing the principles 5 of natural justice. The petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to participate in the inquiry, defend himself, submit evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. However, he willfully chose non-cooperation at every stage, refusing to receive ofÏcial communications, declining to submit required documents pertaining to his transfer request objecting without justification to the competence of inquiry ofÏcer, 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 OfÏcer ensured adherence to due process, and upon completion of a fair and impartial inquiry, found the charges to be duly established. The Disciplinar 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. 6 6. On the other hand, the writ petitioner appeared in person would submit that 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 him 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 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. He further 7 submits 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 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 ofÏcers, 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 8 earning member of his family and bear the responsibility of supporting his wife, two minor daughters, and 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. He supported the order passed by learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent/writ petitioner in person and perused the records. 8. Bare perusal of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact 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. 9. It is also evident that, the petitioner was penalized by the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, SECL, Bilaspur, on the grounds 9 of alleged misconduct. The said misconduct includes deliberate disobedience of orders issued by higher authorities and refusal to acknowledge or receive ofÏcial 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. One of the charge for Disciplinary action of removal is 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 charges which are taken as the basis of disciplinary action of removal are appears to be not so grievous for which the punishment of removal has been imposed. As far as, previous mis-conduct for which the employee has already been punished cannot be taken as ground for further imposition of penalty of removal. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner 10 for the alleged misconduct appears to be disproportionate. The said finding of the learned Single Judge is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. While allowing the writ petition in part the learned Single Judge remitted the matter 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 extant applicable CISF Rules. The appellants herein failed to establish any manifest error in the order of the learned Single Judge. 11. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 12.In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib