Disciplinary Authority's Order Is Without Sufficient Evidence: Calcutta HC Directs CISF To Reinstate Constable

The Calcutta High Court directed the Central Industrial Security Post (CISF) to reinstate a constable (Petitioner) who was terminated from duty by the disciplinary authority for allowing a non-permitted vehicle to enter the premises of ISSCO.

The Court emphasised that the findings of the investigation officer and the resulting punishment order were unfair. The evidence was insufficient and it seems that the investigation officer had a predetermined bias in their findings. Therefore, the Court asserted that the disciplinary action violated the rules of natural justice and should be set aside. 

Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee noted, “In the view of the foregoing analysis, I have no qualm to hold that findings of the enquiry officer and the order of punishment are perverse and there was lack of evidence and in a pre-conceived mind, the enquiry officer returned his findings and the disciplinary passed the order of the punishment in violation of the rules of natural justice and settled proposition of law”

Advocates Zahid Mahmood and Masud Karim appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Arijit Majumdar appeared for the Respondents/ Union of India.

On August 20, 2010, the Petitioner began working as a Constable in the CISF and was later assigned to 'A' Company at the Tunnel Gate of ISSCO. After a suspicious vehicle entered the ISSCO premises without proper checking, three individuals were captured, and stolen items were found. The Petitioner was suspended and faced a charge sheet under Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2001 (Rules, 2001). The Petitioner denied the charges, and four witnesses testified during the enquiry proceeding, with documents submitted as evidence. The enquiry officer provided a report to the Petitioner, who replied. However, the Petitioner was ultimately removed from service, and their appeal and revision were dismissed. The Petitioner is now seeking to annul the charge sheet, enquiry report, order of punishment, order of the appellate authority, and revision order. Both the Petitioner and the respondent have filed their responses. The Petitioner, through the Writ Petition, questioned the validity of a memorandum of charge issued, leading to disciplinary proceedings against him. The Petitioner also challenged the enquiry report, the order of punishment, the order of the appellate authority and the revision order.

The Court asserted that a disciplinary authority functions as a quasi-judicial entity. Therefore, its observations and findings must be supported by plausible evidence. Such an authority should refrain from making any comments or observations that lack any evidence, as this may cast a negative light on the character of an individual or employee. The Court noted that such an authority must exercise caution when making such comments or observations.

Furthermore, the Court observed that in cases where a departmental staff member files a complaint against another staff member and a different staff member acts as the quasi-judicial authority to investigate and penalise, the authority must perform its duties impartially and without prejudice or a preconceived mindset. The Court emphasised that while judicial review is limited to the decision-making process, decisions considered irrational, grossly disproportionate, or perverse are subject to judicial review.

“In case of disciplinary proceeding and in case of proceeding of like nature, when one official of a department is the complainant and another official of that department acts as quasi-judicial authority to test the veracity of such complaint and to punish, then it is essential that such authority while discharging its quasi-judicial functions must act impartially and without any bias or pre-determined mind. Admittedly, scope of judicial review must be confined to decision making process but if it is found that decision is perverse, irrational or grossly disproportionate, that decision will come under the purview of judicial review”, the Court noted.

The Court noted that, in this case, the Petitioner denied the allegations of allowing a vehicle to enter the premises without proper checking through the tunnel gate. However, the enquiry officer considered this fact to be admitted and concluded that the Petitioner permitted the vehicle to enter the plant premises. The disciplinary authority attempted to patch up any weak points in the enquiry report and evidence but ultimately held the Petitioner responsible for allowing the vehicle to enter as a conniver, even though no charge was levelled against the Petitioner. The disciplinary authority did not allow the Petitioner to respond to this charge.

The Court emphasised that an illegal order from the disciplinary authority cannot be made legal simply because it is affirmed in appeal or revision. The higher authority must review the order and identify any flaws. The Court observed that there was no substantial proof to substantiate the allegations against the Petitioner. The Court placed reliance on the case of Union of India v R. Reddappa [(1993) 4 SCC 269] and noted that the evidence presented does not convincingly prove that the Petitioner allowed the vehicle to enter without proper checking. 

The Court directed the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petition and set aside the charge sheet, the enquiry report, the order of punishment, and subsequent orders.

Cause Title: Ravi Kumar v Union of India & Others

Click here to read/download Judgment