1 2026:CGHC:26099 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1408 of 2020 1 - S.I. Mulla S/o Shri I.S. Mulla Aged About 46 Years R/o Cisf, Unit B.S.P., Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Department, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - Director General Cisf Central Industrial Security Force, Headquarter, 13 Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pin 110003, District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, Unit B.S.P. Bhilai, District Durg., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, CGC Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 25.06.2026 1) Heard. 2) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash 2 order dated 18.01.2020 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities not to take adverse remarks on the punishment imposed by Annexure P/1 while considering petitioner for promotion. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3) Facts of present case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in CISF Unit B.S.P., Bhilai in the year 1997. Article of charge was issued to the petitioner on 20.08.2019, wherein, allegations were made as under : आरोप " बल संख्या 974510060 आ०/ जीडी एसं० आई० मुल्ल, मुन गेट संमुवाया के औसंब इकेई बएसंपी भिलई के दिनके 21.07.2019 के संमुया 2100 सं दिनके 22.07.2019 के 0500 बजी तके रात्रि# पीरा मु$ आरा. शॉ&पी फ्रन्ट संईडी केत)व्यस्थल पीरा केत)व्य हेत त-नत त्रिकेया गेया था। दिनके 22.07.2019 के संमुया 01:19 बजी डीयाट0 अधि3केरा त्रिनराक्षके/ केया) जी० शॉक्ल द्वारा रात्रि# चेकिंके9गे के :रान बल संस्या के अपीन केत)व्यस्थल पीरा संत हुआ पीया गेया तथा बल संस्या के पीसं सं मुबईल फोन बरामु त्रिकेया गेया। बल संस्या के केत)व्य के :रान अपीन केत)व्यस्थल पीरा संत हुआ पीया जीन तथा दिया गेया त्रिन>शॉ के बवाजी? मुबईल फोन अपीन पीसं राखन उसंके केत)व्य के प्रत्रित लपीरावाहे, गे-रा जिजीम्मुरान रावा-या एवा उच्चाधि3केरिरायाG द्वारा दिया गेया त्रिन>शॉ केH अवाहेलन के प्रर्शिशॉ9त केरात हे-। अतJ आरापी हे-।" 4) The disciplinary authority appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The petitioner filed reply to show cause notice on 07.09.2019 and denied its contents. The prosecution examined witnesses and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity. After conclusion of enquiry, the Inquiry officer submitted its report. 3 The disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of deduction of salary for 7 days vide order dated 18.09.2019. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority and thereafter, revisional authority. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2019 and revision was dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2020. The petitioner has challenged all those orders by filing this petition. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded. She would further submit that the petitioner was suffering from conjunctivitis and doctor had advised to use eye-drops in every four hours and to keep eyes closed for some period. On the date of inspection, when the petitioner had used eye-drops and closed his eyes, for few minutes, at the same time, Checking Officer G. Shukla inspected and found the petitioner sleeping. She would contend that medical condition of mother of the petitioner was not good, therefore, he was carrying mobile. She would further contend that this fact was communicated to duty In-charge A.S. Sindhu. She would argue that an article of charge was issued against A.S. Sindhu, also who in reply stated that medical condition of mother of the petitioner was not good and petitioner was advised to use eye drops and this fact was duly informed and permission to carry mobile phone was granted by him. She would submit that order passed by the disciplinary authority, affirmed by the Appellate and revisional authorities appear to be illegal and bad in law, therefore, the 4 petition may be allowed and impugned orders may be quashed. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. He would submit that no written permission was obtained by the petitioner to carry mobile during duty hours. He would contend that the petitioner was found sleeping by Checking Officer of Unit. Immediately, thereafter, show cause notice was issued and departmental inquiry was initiated. He would contend that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and there was compliance of principles of natural justice. It is also argued that the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority recorded concurrent findings and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8) The scope of interference in the matter of departmental inquiry while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. This Court can interfere with the order inflicting penalty, if it has not been passed by the competent authority; principles of natural justice have not been followed and procedure prescribed in Rules have been contravened. 9) In the present case, it appears that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity. Article of charge and show-cause notice were issued and duly replied by the petitioner. Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The witnesses were examined 5 and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity during course of the disciplinary inquiry. Second show-cause notice was also issued and thereafter, penalty was inflicted. 10) The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 11) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Versus P. Gunasekaran1 while dealing with the scope of interference in service matters held as under :- “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings. the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings: (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case: (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; 1. (2015) 2 SCC 610 6 (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13.Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be: (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 14.In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus: (AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7) "7.…….The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution as a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be 7 influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution." 12) Likewise, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Versus Datta Linga Toshatwad2 held that penalty inflicted in a departmental inquiry can be interfered by the High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution of India if the order has been passed by an incompetent authority or if procedure to inflict the penalty has not been followed or if the penalty if disproportionate looking to the misconduct. 13) In view of the aforesaid legal positions established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is very much clear that High Courts can only interfere in the matters of departmental inquiries exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the penalty shocks the conscience or the procedure prescribed under the rules have not been followed or the principles of natural justice have not been followed. 14) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority 2. (2005) 13 SCC 709 8 and revisional authority and further law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha