Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010012222016 2025:GAU-AS:9688 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2050/2016 PRADIP SAIKIA S/O SRI GANESH SAIKIA, R/O BORBARI, P.O. BAMUNI, P.S. SAMAGURI, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782102 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS THROUGH THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-11 2:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE EASTERN ZONE HEADQUARTER PATNA BIHAR-800001 3:THE COMMANDANT CISF UNIT PPT PARADIP JAGATSINGHPUR ORISSA PIN-754142 4:THE DY. COMMANDANT CUM ENQUIRY OFFICER CISF UNIT PPT PARADIP JAGATSINGHPUR ORISSA PIN-754142 5:SENIOR COMMANDANT CISF Page No.# 2/12 UNIT ONGC JORHAT ASSAM PIN-78500 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D MAZUMDAR, MR.I H SAIKIA,MR.K KALITA,MS.S KANUNGOE Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR.S S ROY,C.G.C. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date: 25.07.2025 Heard Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Roy, learned CGC, representing the respondents. 2. The petitioners, by way of instituting the present proceeding have presented a challenge to an order dated 20.07.2011, issued by the Commandant, CISF Unit, PPT PARADIP, Orissa, imposing the penalty of removal of service upon the petitioner, in pursuance to a departmental proceeding instituted against him. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 17.10.2011, passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Eastern Zone, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. The facts shown in detail are noted herein below: - The petitioner was appointed as a Constable (GD) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), vide an order dated 27.02.2020. While the petitioner was posted at CISF Unit PPT PARADIP, Orissa, basing on certain allegations leveled against him, he came to be placed under suspension vide an order dated 13.04.2011. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was held in the matter against the petitioner and basing on the materials coming on record, the disciplinary authority being satisfied that the petitioner had committed a Page No.# 3/12 mis-conduct during discharge of his duties, proceeded to institute a departmental proceeding against him by way of issuance of a Memorandum of Charge dated 16.04.2011. The article of charge framed against the petitioner in the said Memorandum of Charge being relevant, is extracted herein below: - “ ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO.107220132 CONSTABLE/GD PRADIP SAIKIA OF CISF UNIT PPT PARDIP. Article-I No. 107220132 Constable/GD. Pradip Saikia of CISF Unit PPT Paradip was on 'B' shift duty at Gate No.1 from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs on 12.04.2011 and was detailed for checking of incoming vehicles. At abour 1735 hrs Inspector/Exe P.K.Sethi, I/c CIW reached at gate No.1 and noticed that Const. Pradip Saikia who was carrying out checking of Iron Ore Trucks threw something inside the cabin of a Truck On searching inside the cabin, I/c CIW Inspector/Exe P.K.Sethi found that a currency note Rs 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) was lying under the seat of helper of Truck No. OR-09-J 3471 which seems to be illegally collected money by No. 107220132 Constable/GD Pradip Saikia from any truck during his duty hours. This act on part of No. 107220132 Constable/GD Pradip Saikia tantamount to gross misconduct, indiscipline and violation of good order. Hence the charge.” The petitioner, on receipt of the said Memorandum of Charge, submitted his reply therein, denying the charges so framed against him. The disciplinary authorities being not satisfied with the contention raised in the written statement submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to direct for holding of an enquiry in the matter and appointed an enquiry officer for the purpose. Thereafter, the enquiry officer had issued notices to the petitioner to appear in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner vide order dated 12.07.2011, proceeded to revoke the order of suspension and reinstated him in his service. The petitioner, thereafter, participated in the enquiry and on conclusion of the enquiry; the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report holding the charge leveled against the petitioner to be established. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the Page No.# 4/12 petitioner and the petitioner had submitted a representation thereon. The disciplinary authority, upon examining the materials coming on record in the enquiry as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner herein, was pleased vide the order dated 20.07.2011, to impose the penalty of removal of service upon the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority in the matter. The Appellate Authority, i.e. the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Eastern Zone, vide order dated 17.10.2011, on examining the appeal of the petitioner along with the contemporaneous records, proceeded to reject the said appeal as instituted by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Ms. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court through the Memorandum of Charge as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, has submitted that the allegation leveled against the petitioner was not enquired into by the authorities in the manner required. The allegation leveled against the petitioner being that he had while discharging his duties on 12.04.2011, had thrown something into a Truck standing at the side and the same on being witnessed by Inspector/Exe. P. K. Sethi of the unit, the Truck was searched and a currency note of Rs. 100/- was found lying under the seat of the Helper. The Truck Driver and the Helper were examined and they had disclosed that the said note was thrown by the petitioner herein. Ms. Kanungoe has submitted that when the said incident had occasioned, Constable P. K. Mohanty was performing duties with him. However, the disciplinary authority had not examined him in the enquiry. Further, she has submitted that neither the Truck Driver nor the Helper, who were projected to be the persons who had disclosed the actions on the part of the petitioner in throwing Rs. 100/- note into the truck, were also not examined in the enquiry. Further, she has submitted that the Head Constable Vinod Kumar and Constable Inder Singh, who were examined as departmental witnesses No. 3 and No. 4 respectively, and who were performing their duties on the said date along with the petitioner had also not stated anything about the petitioner, receiving bribe of Rs. 100/- from any of the trucks coming into the port. Page No.# 5/12 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was examined by Inspector P. K. Sethi, however, his such statement was changed subsequently, by utilizing his signature taken of the petitioner in a plain paper. Ms. Kanungoe has submitted that the fact that the petitioner had taken a bribe not being established in the enquiry and only a presumption being available in the matter with regard to the said fact, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner is clearly disproportionate to the allegations leveled against him in the Memorandum of charge dated 16.04.2011. In the above premises, Ms. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the penalty of removal from service as imposed upon the petitioner would mandate an interference from this Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the disciplinary authority being satisfied of a misconduct being committed by the petitioner in the matter, the Memorandum of Charge came to be issued to him. It is submitted that the enquiry as held in the matter was so held in strict compliance by complying with the procedure mandated in this connection, after offering reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. He has further submitted that the enquiry report, on being submitted by the enquiry officer, a copy thereof, was duly forwarded to the petitioner and also submitted his written submission therein. By referring to the averments made in the affidavit filed by the respondents, Mr. Roy has submitted that in the representation so submitted against the petitioner to the enquiry report, he had only stated that he had nothing to say against the enquiry report and had requested the departmental authorities to take appropriate action in the matter. 8. Mr. Roy has by referring to the statements made by the petitioner in the matter has submitted that in the preliminary enquiry held on 12.04.2011, the petitioner had accepted his guilt in the statement. In the proper enquiry held on 13.06.2011, when the petitioner was examined, the petitioner in response to a question put to him as to whether he had deposed any statement regarding the incident on 12.04.2011; i.e. during the preliminary enquiry, he confirmed the same to be true. The petitioner deposed that he Page No.# 6/12 was confirming the statements made to be true. Mr. Roy has submitted that the petitioner, in fact, has admitted to the charge leveled against him and accordingly, the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not mandate an acceptance by this Court. Mr. Roy has further submitted that the petitioner being a member of a disciplined force cannot be expected to receive bribes and thereby, undermine the trust reposed upon him by the authorities. Accordingly, he submits that the charge leveled against the petitioner being proved, the penalty of removal from service, imposed upon him is proportionate to the charge proved against the petitioner. In the above premises, Mr. Roy submits that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner would not mandate an interference from this Court. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 10. The allegation leveled against the petitioner (extracted herein above) in the Memorandum of Charge dated 16.04.2011, is to the effect that he while being ‘B’ shift duty at Gate No. 1 from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs, on 24.11.2011 was detailed for checking of incoming vehicles. At about 1735 hrs, Inspector/Exe P. K. Sethi, I/c CIW at Gate No. 1 had noticed that the petitioner, who was carrying out checking of Iron Ore Trucks, threw something the cabin of the Truck. Accordingly, a search was made inside the cabin of the said Truck by said Inspector and a currency note of Rs. 100/- was recovered, which was lying under the seat of the Helper of the truck. It was held that the said money was illegally collected by the petitioner from one of the trucks during his duty hours. 11. It is to be noted that while reporting for duties, as is the procedure prescribed, personnel of the force had to declare that they are not carrying Rs. 10/- as pocket money. The petitioner has submitted his written statement of defense against the Memorandum of Charge, however, the same not being found to be satisfactory, an enquiry was directed to be held against the petitioner in the matter. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and there is no allegation in the writ petition that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend his case in the matter. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Page No.# 7/12 enquiry officer had submitted his enquiry report and therein, had held that the charge leveled against the petitioner to have been proved. The copy of the enquiry report, on being furnished to the petitioner, he had submitted a written representation against the same on 11.07.2012. The materials brought on record reveals that the petitioner had not raised any contention in his representation against the enquiry report and had only stated that he had nothing to say against the enquiry report and had requested the authority to take appropriate action. 12. The said contention made by the petitioner in his representation would go to show that the petitioner had accepted the findings and conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report. In the enquiry, a question was put to the petitioner as to the amount he can carry as pocket money. The petitioner replied that only Rs. 10/- is authorized to be kept as pocket money during duty, which is also directed by the Chief In- charge. Although the petitioner had replied that he might had not taken any money nor did he throw the currency note of Rs. 100 /- inside the vehicle. It is to be noted that during the preliminary enquiry, the petitioner had deposed that he had received an amount of Rs. 100/- from a helper of a truck while checking its papers and had thrown the same inside the truck bearing No. OR093-3471 on seeing Inspector/Exe P. K. Sethy, approaching the place where he was performing his duties. The said statement was put to the petitioner during his examination in the enquiry held in pursuance to the Memorandum of Charge, dated 16.04.2011. The petitioner, in response to a question put to him in this connection, confirmed the statement so made to be true. The said statement as made by the petitioner during the enquiry, brings on record his admission of the charge so leveled against him. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner towards assailing the penalty imposed upon him, had submitted that the enquiry stood vitiated on account of the fact that Constable P.K. Mohanty, who was also performing his duties along with the petitioner at the same time on the date of the incident, was not enlisted as a listed witness by the departmental authorities. The said contention of the petitioner would not mandate an acceptance, inasmuch as, in the event, said P. K. Mohanty was a person having knowledge of the Page No.# 8/12 incident, there was nothing preventing the petitioner from requiring the enquiry officer to permit him to examine said P. K. Mohanty as a defense witness. Similarly, the plea that the driver and helper of the truck, from where the currency of Rs. 100/- was recovered on being thrown by the petitioner, not being examined as witnesses in the enquiry, there was nothing preventing the petitioner from requiring the enquiry officer to examine the said driver and the helper as defense witnesses in the matter. 14. It is to be noted that from the materials brought on record, no disclosure is made to the effect that the petitioner had made any such request before the enquiry officer for examining said P.K. Mohanty, the driver and helper of the truck in question as his witness. Accordingly, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this connection, in the considered view of this Court would not mandate an acceptance. Further, the contention raised by the petitioner that the statement made by the petitioner during the preliminary enquiry was subsequently changed, would also not mandate an acceptance, inasmuch as, enquiry held subsequent to the issuance of the Memorandum of Charge dated 16.04.2011, the petitioner had admitted to the statement so made by him during the preliminary enquiry which was to the effect that he had on seeing the Inspector/Exe P.K. Sethi approaching towards him, had thrown the Rs. 100/- currency note into the cabin of the truck in question. He had also submitted that the said money was handed over to him along with the papers by a truck earlier during the checking of the papers of the said truck. The said statement of the petitioner, more particularly, the statements made by him in the enquiry, would go to reveal that the deposition recorded of the petitioner in the preliminary enquiry was his original statement and the contention raised in the present proceeding that the same was subsequently changed, would not mandate an acceptance by this Court. 15. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner, who is a member of a disciplined force, would not mandate interference by this Court. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the penalty imposed Page No.# 9/12 upon the petitioner is clearly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the petitioner herein. The said contention raised by the petitioner that the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the allegations as leveled against him and accordingly, the same requires to be interfered with, is now being examined by this Court. 17. This Court, in this context, would refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & ors. v. P. C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364, wherein in this connection, the following conclusions were drawn by the Court: - “15. It needs no emphasis that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971 (1) All E.R. 1148] observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the minds of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. But as noted above, the proceedings commenced in 1981. The employee was placed under suspension from 1983 to 1988 and has superannuated in 2002. Acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in criminal case. It per se would not entitle the Page No.# 10/12 employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application.” 18. The allegations as leveled against the petitioner, on being established in the inquiry held and the same having demonstrated a misconduct being committed in the matter by the petitioner, who admittedly was a responsible member of the disciplined Force; it is to be noted that the petitioner cannot, in any manner, be extended with any sympathy. The allegations leveled against the petitioner having been held to have been established and the misconduct as committed by him, being apparent, the penalty as imposed upon him, cannot be stated to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct. It is a settled position of law that the penalty that is to be imposed upon the petitioner is the discretion of the disciplinary authority. Of course, this discretion has to be examined objectively keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the charge. The disciplinary authority is to decide a particular penalty specified in the relevant Rules. A host of factors go into the decision making process while exercising such a discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of duties assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the force, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any. Accordingly, the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner in the case in hand, in the considered view of this Court; is proportionate to the allegations levelled against him and established in the inquiry. 19. It is only when the punishment is found by this Court to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of the allegations levelled against the delinquent that the principle of proportionality would come into play. It is, however, to be borne in mind that this principle would be attracted, which is in tune with the doctrine of Wednesbury rule of reasonableness, only when in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the nature of the charge that it shocks the conscience of the Court and the Court is forced to believe that it is totally unreasonable and arbitrary. Page No.# 11/12 20. The principle of proportionality was first propounded by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service in the following words:(AC p. 410 D-E) “........ Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads of the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'. This is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of 'proportionality'." 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had approved the aforesaid principle in the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 611, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by emphasising that "all powers have legal limits" invoked the aforesaid doctrine in the following words in paragraph No. 25. Paragraph No. 25 of the said judgment being relevant, is extracted herein below for ready reference: (SCC p. 620, para 25) "25. The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review." 22. In view of the pronouncement made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters, as noticed above; it is clear that it is not for the writ Court to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which is a matter within the domain and the jurisdiction of the said authority. The respondent authorities having found the Page No.# 12/12 misconduct against the petitioner, to have been established; it is within their competence and jurisdiction to impose the penalty as it may consider adequate, commensurating to the misconduct attributed and proved. It is not for the writ Court to prescribe another penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. It will have to be borne in mind that the job entrusted to the petitioner, herein, being of a responsible member, in a disciplined Force like the Central Industrial Security Force is that of faith and confidence and once it is lost, it is for the disciplined Force to decide what penalty is to be imposed. The petitioner being a member of a disciplined Force ought to have maintained utmost integrity, devotion, diligence and honesty, which, he admittedly has failed to, do so. 23. In case of the petitioner, herein, it is to be noted that the disciplinary authority on examination of the materials coming on record, had imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner, which was also noticed by the appellate authority. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the penalty now imposed upon the petitioner, is not disproportionate to the allegations proved against him in the enquiry held. 24. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions and conclusions; this Court is of the considered view that, given the facts and circumstances as existing in the matter; it has to be held that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, herein, also commensurates to the misconduct as established against him in the matter and the same does not call for any interference from this Court. 25. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant