Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1615 (BOM)

Salim Shaikh v. Union of India

2025-12-16

SIDDHESHWAR S.THOMBRE

body2025
JUDGMENT : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties at the stage of admission. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner prays that the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Mumbai CSMT be quashed and set aside. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined with the Railway Protection Force. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and there were total four charges levelled against him which are at page no.7. After framing of charges, the inquiry officer vide his report dated 20.02.2021 pointed out that charge nos.1 and 2 were not proved and said report was submitted to the Divisional Security Commissioner/Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority showed its disagreement with charge nos.1 and 2 and while doing so, the disciplinary authority ought to have recorded reasons for such disagreement and ought to have recorded its own finding thereon. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority ought to have provided the copy of the report of disagreement to the petitioner but without providing the same, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from services. Therefore, he submits that this non furnishing of report of disagreement, clearly violates the principles of natural justice as well as Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Const. Seth Pal Singh Vs. Garg and Union of India and others reported in 2010 SCC Online Del 3895, more particularly para 15, which reads thus : “15. It needs no elaboration that when disciplinary proceedings are envisaged against any employee, the disciplinary authority has the Jurisdiction either to proceed in the matter and conduct the inquiry himself or to delegate the same to an appropriate inquiry officer. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority assigned the task of undertaking the inquiry to his subordinate. The disciplinary authority was not in agreement in entirety with the report which he received in the second inquiry as well. Faced with such disagreement, the question which arises is the manner in which the disciplinary authority shall proceed in the event of disagreement with the findings and recommendations of an enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority was not in agreement in entirety with the report which he received in the second inquiry as well. Faced with such disagreement, the question which arises is the manner in which the disciplinary authority shall proceed in the event of disagreement with the findings and recommendations of an enquiry officer. This issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Supreme Court in the plethora of judgments which have been relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner before us.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Ram Dutta Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2016 SCC Online Cal 4147, more particularly para 14, which reads thus : “14. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, it is well settled that the disciplinary authority differs with the findings of the enquiry officer with regard to any charge against the charged employee, it must serve a notice/show cause informing the charged employee of the grounds on which it proposes to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. This mandatory obligation of the disciplinary authority is based on the principles of natural justice and by no means the disciplinary authority can avoid this obligation on the ground of absence of any Rule or Regulation to that effect.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the law laid down by the High Courts which is based upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the case of petitioner.. 8. Per contra, Mr. Talhar, learned DSGI opposed the prayer of the petitioner pointing out that RPF is a disciplinary force. When inquiry was initiated on four charges and out of those, only two charges were proved. The disciplinary authority recorded its disagreement with respect to charge nos.1 and 2 and upon substantive satisfaction, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. He further invited my attention to the regulation no.154.5, which reads thus : “154.4 - The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.” 9. He further invited my attention to the regulation no.154.5, which reads thus : “154.4 - The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.” 9. On the basis of above regulation, he submits that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any article, it shall record its reasons for such disagreement and shall record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. 10. Herein this case also the disciplinary authority recorded its disagreement on the point of charge nos.1 and 2 and recorded reasons for the same. He submits that there was no necessity to supply the copy of the report wherein the disciplinary authority has shown its disagreement with charge nos.1 and 2. Therefore, he submits that the authorities have considered the findings and passed appropriate orders. He further submits that before the appellate authority, revisional authority and this Court, the petitioner has not raised this ground that he was not provide the copy of disagreement. More particularly, he would submit that the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are very limited and being supervisory in nature, this Court is not supposed to interfere with the findings recorded by both authorities. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, there is no dispute about the fact that inquiry was initiated against the petitioner for four charges. Out of that, the disciplinary authority has shown its disagreement on charge nos. 1 and 2 which were shown as not proved by the inquiry officer. As far as charge nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the finding of the inquiry officer was that those charges were proved. The disciplinary authority recorded its disagreement with respect of charge nos.1 and 2 and compulsorily retired the petitioner from services. 12. In fact, the disciplinary authority has recorded its disagreement about the findings of inquiry officer and on the basis of that, it arrived at conclusion that charge nos.1 and 2 were not proved against the petitioner and therefore, order of compulsory retirement was passed. 12. In fact, the disciplinary authority has recorded its disagreement about the findings of inquiry officer and on the basis of that, it arrived at conclusion that charge nos.1 and 2 were not proved against the petitioner and therefore, order of compulsory retirement was passed. Admittedly, after disagreement with the finding of inquiry officer, copy of disagreement report was not served upon the petitioner and therefore, in view of the above referred judgments, I am inclined to entertain the petition by setting aside the order passed by all the authorities from the stage when disciplinary authority recorded disagreement. Therefore, the disciplinary authority is directed to supply the copy of said report to the petitioner and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner pass an order in accordance with law. ORDER (I) Writ Petition is partly allowed. (II) The order dated 31.03.2021 passed by Divisional Security Commissioner in Order No.29/2021, order dated 17.08.2021 passed by Chief Security Commissioner, Bhusawal in Appeal Order No.168/2021 and order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, CSMT Mumbai in Revision Order No.224/2021 are quashed and set aside. (II) The disciplinary authority shall supply the copy of disagreement report to the petitioner and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner pass an order in accordance with law. (III) Considering the fact that the petitioner is out of service from 2022, the disciplinary authority shall complete the proceeding within a period of three months from today. (IV) Rule is made absolute in above terms.