1 CGHC010291692021 2026:CGHC:30157 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6413 of 2021  V. V. Subbadu S/o Late V. Naganna, Aged About 50 Years Working As Head Constable At Sr. No. 914525697 Cisf Unit Chhattisgarh Bsp Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Government Of India, Department Of Home Affairs, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 2. The Director General, Cisf Head Quarters, No. 13, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 3. The Inspector General, Cisf Head Quarters, Western Sector, No. C-301, Kendriya Sadan Sector-10, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai,, District : Mumbai, Maharashtra 4. The Deputy Inspector General, Cisf Unit Bsp Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Sector- I, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5. The Commandant, Cisf Unit Bsp Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Office Of Deputy Inspector General, Cisf, Sector-I, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, C.G.C. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 2 16.7.2026 1) In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the orders passed by appellate authority and revisional authority whereby penalty of compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits passed by the disciplinary authority has been maintained. 2) Facts of present case are that initially petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable GD in respondent department and at the relevant time, petitioner was working on the post of Head Constable. On 2.1.2019, petitioner was issued a charge memo wherein following allegations were made :- आरोप-I बल संख्या 914525697 प्रधान आरक्षक / जीडी वी. वीन्कटा संबडी (निनलनिबत), जीरतरई संमवीया, क औसंब इकई बएसंपी भि!लई क जीरतरई संमवीया म" संएचएम पीद पीर कत%व्य हेत त(नत निकया गया था। दिदनक 01.12.2018 क संमया लग!ग 1930 बजी निबन निकसं संक्षम अधिधाकर क/ पी0वी%अनमनित एवी सं0चन क संयात्र क जीरतरई संमवीया क कत%व्य स्थल मरद गटा वी3च टावीर-18 पीर गया तथा वीहे4 त(नत नवीनिनयाक्त बल संख्या 170819028 आरक्षक / जीडी एम. नरयाणा रवी क कत%व्य म" हेस्तक्षपी कर तथा उसंन अपीन पीद क दुरूपीयाग करत हुए, आरक्षक / जीडी एम. नरयाणा रवी क मन करन क बवीजी0द ! स्वीया क ल! हेत गलत तरक क संहेर लत हुए अपीरधा दिदलपी क मर क मध्याम सं 03 बर कयाल क अवी(धा तरक सं हेर हेन्डा मटार संईनिकल संख्या संजी-07-बजी- 5505 पीर रख कर संयात्र क बहेर निनकलवी रहे था। संमया लग!ग 2025 बजी अपीरधा एवी आसं0चन शाख प्र!र एवी अन्या बल संदस्या@ द्वार छापीमर क/ कया%वीहे क दCरन अपीरधा व्यक्तिक्त तथा कयाल संनिहेत आरक्षक / जीडी वी. वीन्कटा संबडी (निनलनिबत) क पीकड़ा गया। आरक्षक / जीडी वी. वीन्कटा संबडी (निनलनिबत) आसं0चन शाख क बल संदस्या@ क दखत हे रूपीया 1700/- (रूपीया संत्रहे संC) जिजीसंम" 500/- क द नटा, 200/- क द नटा तथा 100/- क तन नटा) क झानिड़ाया@ म" फें" क दिदया जिजीसं अपीरधा एवी आसं0चन शाख म" कया%रत आरक्षक / जीडी उमशा यादवी क निनशानदहे पीर उक्त रूपीया क बरमद निकया गया। अतI बल संख्या 914525697 प्रधान आरक्षक / जीडी वी. वीन्कटा संबडी (निनलनिबत) क उपीरक्त कJ त्या उसंक कत%व्य क प्रनित घोर भ्रष्ट आचरणा, कदचर तथा अनशासंनहेनत क पीरिरलभिक्षत करत हे(। अतI आरपी हे(। 3 आरोप-II बल संख्या 914525697 प्रधान आरक्षक / जीडी वी. वीन्कटा संबडी (निनलनिबत), जीरतरई संमवीया, क औसंब इकई बएसंपी भि!लई म" त(नत हे( क संवी अभि!लख क अवीलकन करन पीर पीया गया हे( निक उसंक उसंक/ संवी क दCरन निपीछाल इकईया@ द्वार निवीभि!न्न अनशासंनहेन कJ त्या@ म" संलिलप्त पीया जीन पीर पी0वी% म" 01 बड़ा एवी 02 छाटाS संजीया" अनशासंनिनक अधिधाकरिरया@ द्वार उसं उसंक आचरणा म" संधार क संअवीसंर प्रदन करन क/ निनयानित सं दS जी चक/ हेT। पीरत बल संदस्या क वीत%मन म" निकया गया कJ त्या सं ऐसं प्रतत हेत हे( निक वीहे अनशासंनहेन प्रवीJभिV क हे( तथा ऐसं आचरणा क आदS हे(। बल संदस्या पीर लग आरपी संख्या 01 वी 02 निवी!गया जीच क दCरन यादिद संत्या पीए जीत हेT, त अनशासंनिनक अधिधाकर द्वार संजी क निनधा%रणा करत संमया इसं खण्डी पीर वीर्णिणाYत उसंक व्यवीहेर क ध्यान म" रख जीयाग। अतI आरपी हे(। 3) Petitioner filed reply to the charge memo on 18.1.2019. Thereafter, disciplinary authority/ Commandant, CISF Unit BSP Bhilai appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 30.1.2019 and on account of administrative exigency, Inquiry Officer was re-appointed on 7.2.2019. Prosecution examined its witnesses and exhibited the documents and petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Subsequently, Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 21.3.2019. Disciplinary authority issued second show-cause notice and thereafter, penalty of compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits was inflicted upon the petitioner vide order dated 22.4.2019. 4) Petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit BSP Bhilai and same was dismissed vide order dated 1.6.2019. Petitioner preferred revision before Inspector General, CISF Head Quarters and same was dismissed vide order dated 16.9.2019. 4 5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits penalty inflicted on the petitioner is wholly excessive and disproportionate looking to the alleged misconduct and Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority ought to have taken a lenient view as the department failed to lead clinching evidence in order to establish that petitioner helped the miscreant Dileep in illegal transporation of coal. He further submits that petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and Dileep, who was arrested by the police on the date of incident was never examined by the department. He prays to quash the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner was a member of armed force and he helped a miscreant in illegal transportation of coal from the factory premises. He further submits that a full fledged department inquiry was conducted wherein charge memo was issued ; Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed ; department examined its witnesses and exhibited relevant documents. He also submits that Inquiry Officer submitted its report before the disciplinary authority, who concurred with the inquiry report and inflicted the penalty of compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits. He argues that this petition deserve to be dismissed. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 5 8) Perusal of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority would reveal that witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer who proved the guilt of petitioner. Inquiry Officer examined D.P. Singh, Inspector who stated that Dileep was interrogated in his presence and illegal coal was seized. Surai Murmu, Inspector stated that when he reached the spot, Dileep was being interrogated and a total of Rs. 1,700/- were seized from his possession. K.B. Rao, Sub-Inspector supported the case of prosecution. Umesh Yadav, Narayana Rao and P.C. Behra, Constables were also examined and sufficient documents were exhibited. 9) A categorical finding has been recorded by all the authorities to the effect that the witnesses remained firm and petitioner failed to controvert the documents exhibited by the prosecution. Previously, petitioner was inflicted with one major and two minor penalties and this fact has not been rebutted by the petitioner. Furthermore, the penalty order would reveal that petitioner has been inflicted with penalty of compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits and such finding has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority. It is well-settled principle of law that order of compulsory retirement does not have any stigma attached to it. 10) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and 6 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; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; 1. (2015) 2 SCC 610 7 (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 A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao. 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 8 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 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." 11) 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. 12) In the present case, petitioner failed to demonstrate that penalty order was passed by the incompetent authority or the procedure prescribed under the rules have not been followed. With regard to 2. (2005) 13 SCC 709 9 proportionality of penalty, in my opinion, petitioner who was a member of the uniformed force helped a miscreant in illegal transportation of coal. Such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of the forces. Such matters cannot be taken lightly, particularly when it relates to uniformed forces of this country. 13) In consequence, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. 15) Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.17 11:25:03 +0530