Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 25 (PAT)

Ambika Singh v. Union Of India

2006-01-05

J.N.BHATT, R.N.PRASAD

body2006
Judgment 1. In this Letters Patent Appeal by invocation of clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, the appellant-original petitioner has brought into sharp focus, short question with regard to proportionality of the punishment of removal from service of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), by virtue of order dated, 18.8.1999, recorded by the Commandant, CISF, Unit BSL, Bokaro, and order of the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Bokaro Steel City, dated 3.2.2001, confirmed by the Inspector General, CISF, on 1.8.2002, by challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, recorded on 14.5.2004 in CWJC No. 4127 of 2004. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have offered their submissions and in course thereof, we have been taken through the relevant and material record, as well as, the legal settings. We have, also, especially, gone through the record. With a view to appreciate the aforesaid short proposition, advanced before us, by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-original petitioner and the opposition by the learned counsel for the respondents, let there be a skeleton projection of the material facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal that: (i) the appellant-original petitioner, who was in the service of CISF, Bokaro Steel City, as constable, was charge-sheeted for the misconduct and dereliction of his duties; (ii) he was such charged by the respondent department with grave misconduct and negligence in his duties in the CISF Unit, BTPS (DVC), Bokaro and also for leaving the unit line without permission on 8.12.1997 in utter disregard to the standing order; (iii) he also created nuisance at Bokaro Thermal Railway Station under the influence of liquor on 8*12.1997. He was, therefore, charged that this act on his part was unbecoming of a member of the Armed Force of the Union; (iv) he deserted from Unit line with effect from 9.12.1997 till the date of the charge-sheet, which was on 15.1.1998 and, which was also treated as an act of gross indiscipline. Thus, there were three grave charges against the appellant-original petitioner. 3 The respondents authority appointed an Inquiring Officer. The evidence came to be recordeddocumentary, as well as, "viva voce" and the Inquiring Officer, upon conclusion of the inquiry, found the appellant-original petitioner delinquent and guilty of the aforesaid charges and recommended punishment of removal from service. 4. Thus, there were three grave charges against the appellant-original petitioner. 3 The respondents authority appointed an Inquiring Officer. The evidence came to be recordeddocumentary, as well as, "viva voce" and the Inquiring Officer, upon conclusion of the inquiry, found the appellant-original petitioner delinquent and guilty of the aforesaid charges and recommended punishment of removal from service. 4. The disciplinary authority, agreeing with the findings of the Inquiring Officer, passed an order of removal on 31.7.1998 which was challenged by the appellant-original petitioner by filing an appeal before the DIG, CISF, Bokaro. As the appellant did not join and opt for participating in the inquiry, the DIG heard the appeal against the removal order, decided in favour of the delinquent by setting aside the order of removal passed by the Commandant and directed for "de novo" inquiry, as per the order dated 25.2.1999. 5. Thereupon, more copies of documents were supplied to the appellant and he was also afforded with an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which he availed of. Upon a fresh look and consideration of the evidence against him, the Commandant recorded again an order of removal from service by his order dated 18.8.1999, which was again questioned in appeal by the original petitioner-appellant before the DIG, Bokaro, unsuccessfully. 6. Thereafter, the appellant-original petitioner moved the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi by invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in CWJC No. 225 of 2001, which was dismissed by order dated 15.1.2001, with an observation that the petitioner (appellant-original petitioner) should pursue the appeal, already filed, before the appellate forum of the department. The appellate authority, the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, Bokaro, by order dated 3.2.2001 rejected the appeal. 7. Same way further challenge by way of revision by the appellant, before the Ministry of Home Affairs, ended also in smoke as the revision was decided against him, by order dated 1.8.2002 by the Inspector General, CISF, Eastern Sector Hqrs, Patna. The appellate authority, the Deputy Inspector General, CISF Unit, Bokaro, by order dated 3.2.2001 rejected the appeal. 7. Same way further challenge by way of revision by the appellant, before the Ministry of Home Affairs, ended also in smoke as the revision was decided against him, by order dated 1.8.2002 by the Inspector General, CISF, Eastern Sector Hqrs, Patna. That is how, after exhausting all the departmental channels available, the appellant-original petitioner filed a writ petition by invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court and the learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, dismissed the writ petition, CWJC No. 4127 of 2004, on 14.5.2004 which is under challenge before us in this Letters Patent Appeal by invocation of clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 8. The sole submission about the proportionality of punishment is to be examined and evaluated in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The contention has been reiterated that the punishment of removal from service, even upon the proof of charges against the appellant-original petitioner, is too harsh and heavy and it is, therefore, contended, that the punishment of removal against the appellant is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the judicial mind. This submission is countenanced by the learned Assistant Solicitor General. 9. The submission reiterated before us may appear, "prima facie," subtle and alluring, but not found sustainable, when one gets reality of the special facts and circumstances, obtainable in the present case and the relevant proposition of law. 10. One of the considerations for appreciation of the proportionality of the punishment is the type and nature of delinquency, as well as, the delinquent. It cannot be gainsaid that the standard of discipline expected of an Armed Force personnel has always been higher and, ordinarily, no discipline could be compromised for such person who is in charge of the Armed Force, or, who is a part of the Defence Force. The facts and circumstances, culminating into the proof of the three serious charges and the resultant order of removal from service of a constable in the CISF, undoubtedly, are very grave and measure delinquencies. It is not an order of dismissal from service but is an order of removal from service which, as such, admittedly, does not debar the appellant-original petitioner from being considered for future Governmental job. It is not an order of dismissal from service but is an order of removal from service which, as such, admittedly, does not debar the appellant-original petitioner from being considered for future Governmental job. It is, therefore, not correct to say that issue of proportionality of sentence was not addressed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, or the revisional authority or the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, such grave and serious charges having been established, the award of punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be, in any way, disproportionate, shocking the conscience, requiring our interference in terms appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Any lenient approach in terms of break or infraction of discipline by the disciplined Armed Force, may have a paralytic impact on its existence. It is imperative for the personnel working in Armed or Disciplined Force to be more circumspect and disciplined, as they are, as such, engaged to discipline the indisciplined, in other words, to prevent and check the breaking of law and violation of discipline, and more so, when the appellant-original petitioner is engaged in charge of the security of the Bokaro Thermal Power. 11. We are, therefore, unable to circumscribe to the contentions reiterated in this appeal. It is not the case that the punishment imposed is not permissible. Again, in such a matter, even in a case of overstaying of a personnel of a Disciplined Armed Force, a serous view has been taken and even punishment of dismissal, on account of overstaying the leave, has been upheld and approved by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. V/s. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, reported in JT 2005(9) SC 212, wherein order passed by the competent authority, finding an employee guilty of overstaying, has been found justified, setting aside the order of the High Court taking a lenient view. 12. We, therefore, are left with no alternative but to dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal with costs.