2025:UHC:4758-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 20 of 2015 10 June, 2025 Union Of India & others … Appellant Versus No. 804290078 Head Constable / GD Vijay Pal Singh Of CISF Unit BHEL … Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari) JUDGMENT 1. This intra-court appeal is filed by Union of India challenging the judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 768 of 2012. By the said judgment, writ petition filed by respondent, challenging order of his compulsory retirement, was set-aside on the ground that the said order was passed in violation of provision contained in Section 8 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. 2. Operative portion of the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2014 is extracted below:- “10. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The two orders dated 26.02.2011, passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit BHEL, Haridwar and order dated 02.02.2012, passed by the Assistant Inspector General/Estt. being violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India are hereby quashed. 11. A mandamus is hereby issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. 1 2025:UHC:4758-DB 12. Having made the above determination, it is however, provided that the respondents are always at liberty to proceed against the petitioner on medical grounds but under the procedure as provided under Rule 91B of the CISF Rules, 2001.” 3. Section 8 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, which is relevant in the present case, is extracted below:- “8.Dismissal, removal, etc., of members of the Force:- Subject to the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution and to such rules as the Central Government may make under this Act, any supervisory officer may – (i) dismiss, remove, order for compulsory retirement of or reduce in rank, any enrolled member of the Force whom he thinks remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same; or (ii) award any one or more of the following punishments to any enrolled member of the Force who discharges his duty in a careless or negligent manner, to who by any act of his own renders himself unfit for the discharge thereof, namely:- a) fine to any amount not exceeding seven days pay or reduction in pay scale; b) drill, extra guard, fatigue or other duty c) removal from any office of distinction or deprivation of any special emolument. d) withholding of increment of pay with or without cumulative effect. e) withholding of promotion. f) censure.” 4. It is not in dispute that neither any enquiry was held nor opportunity of hearing was given to respondent before passing the order of compulsory retirement against him, despite the provision contained in Section 8(1) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules, applicable to Central Government employees, enables the Competent Authority to retire any employee by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances 2 2025:UHC:4758-DB in lieu of such notice. He thus submits that the Competent Authority exercised this power under Section 56(j) of the said Rules, and gave three months notice to the respondent, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of compulsory retirement and interference made by learned Single Judge was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the service record of respondent was not satisfactory, as there were as many as eighteen minor penalties imposed upon him during his service career, besides one major penalty 6. Section 56(j) of Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules, relied by the appellant, is extracted below:- “56(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government Servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:- (i) if he is, in charge ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ service or post in a substitute, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years. (ii) in any other case after he has attained the age of fifty five years: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Government servant referred to in clause (e), who entered Government service on or before the 23rd July, 1966.” 7. Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which is incorporated by reference in Section 8 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, is reproduced below, for ready reference:- “311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State— 3 2025:UHC:4758-DB (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges 2***: Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply—] (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.” 8. We are not impressed by the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. Central Industrial Security Force was constituted under Section 3 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. The punishments, which can be imposed upon members of the force, are enumerated in Section 8 of the said Act. One of the punishment, which can be imposed upon members of force, is ‘compulsory retirement’. The opening sentence of Section 8 indicates that provision contained in Article 311 of the Constitution would be applicable whenever the 4 2025:UHC:4758-DB Competent Authority proposes to impose any of the punishment enumerated in Clause (i) of Section 8, including compulsory retirement. Thus, there is no room for doubt that in CISF, compulsory retirement is a penalty and for imposing such penalty, formal disciplinary enquiry would be needed. 9. A conjoint reading of Section 8 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act with Article 311(2) of the Constitution would reveal that before imposing punishment of compulsory retirement upon a member of CISF, disciplinary proceedings would have to be instituted by informing the Officer concerned of the charges against him and he would be entitled to a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Since the provision contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not followed while compulsorily retiring the respondent, therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement passed against him. 10. Thus, there is no scope of interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.06.2025 Aswal 5 NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08 b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF 4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.06.15 21:30:51 -07'00'