High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction, more pBrticularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamuq, Declaring that the impugned proceedingp of the 2t'd respondent vide order No V-15014/4 12011tL and R/-261 dated 26.3.2014, as iflegat, improper, violative of principles of nalural justice and consequently to set-aside the same. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2014(WP MP. NO:1 9001 oF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide impugned order No.v-15014/4i2011|L& R1261 dated 2632014, pending the above writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 37250F 20151 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the responderrts to consider the petitioner for promption in the rank of Commandant, CISF and further promotion as Sr Qommandant subject to the result of the writ pelilron, pending the above writ petition lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition undqr Sqction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances s{ateq in the pffidayi! filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to hear the Wril Petitiprr No 15340 ol 2014 on Fix an Early date in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. GANGAIAH NAIDU, APPEARTNO QN BEHALF OF SIR N. BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUT AR (sc FoR CENTRL GOVT) The Cqurt made the following: ORDER ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETIT ION No. 1s340 ()F 2014 OR DER: The 2nd respondent - Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), uide ordet dated 26'03'2014' impugned in this Writ Petition, awarded pcnalty of withholding of two increments of pay without cumulativc effect for two years' Thc facts, which led to passing the said order' are

2. as follows: Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rues, 1965 were initiated against petitioner' who' at the relevant point ol Lime, was De puty Commandant' CISF' on Ol.O7 .2Ol1 alleging that on 2}'ll '2OO8, at about 12'O5 hours' he with a malafde intcntion tried to cover up the incident of pilferage of 4000 litres of diesel through. oil tanker No AP 3 1 V 1539 by the tanker driver and some empioyees of NMDC Ltd'' BIOP Dept. 14 on the prctext of repair of defective delivery valve' thus violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules' 1964 and acted in a manner unbecoming of an ofltcer of his status in an Armed Force of the Union' After completing formalities o[ enquiry, based on the report, the LIPSC advised uide leLLer clarr:d 08. ll -2013 that ends of justice v'ould be met if penalty as stzr ted above is imposed on petitioner, frlr rvhich, the latter submitled representation datcd 30.O 1.2014. After considcring tl .' repre s(:n tation, records of enquiry :arefully and' the advicc te ndcrr:d b1, the UPSC, thc President of lndia had come to the ct,nclusion that petitione r be ar'l'arded thc impugned penal!y.

3. Lr arned Scnior Counscl Sri P- Ga-rgaiah Naidu appearing on trchalf of Sri N. Bharat Babu, learnr:rl counsel for petitioner submits that in thc de partmcn[al cnqurry initiated in respect of t re allcged incident that had herppencd on 2l .1L.2OO8, -c N. Singh (Junior Officer, Materialr;), B. Lacchu (Oflicer, Material) and Pritam Kumar (A(iM, IVletlerial) were found responsible ancl q'crc suitabl-v- punishcd. ll is sul]mitled that to thc said incident. petitioner was olle of he witnesses and therc is no reason why an enquiry was conducted against him belatedly. Learncd Senior Counsel mainly stresses that respondents la iled to ftrrnish the copies of prelim nary enquiry report of Sri S,.A. Nayecm, DIG, RTC, Bhilai and reporl o[ Sri i I -) Zhoponeye Zuo, Commandant, CISF Unit, Bacheli and other relevant documents pertaining to the charge' ot 26 'O7 '2Oll ' but his request was turned down stating that there is no such provision for supply of documents, which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.AccordingtolearnedSeniorCounsel,thecharge memo is an after-thought and only to affect his career by vested interests. It is submittcd that the observations of the Commissionarebasedonincompletcenquiryreportsuffering from procedural lapses, contradictory and hostile statement of P.W.3 - Insp/Exe D.K. Singh and forged and fabricated xerox document of interstore. While entertaining Writ Petition, on O5'06'2O 14' 4. this Court direcred that pending lurther orders' there shali be interim suspension of the impugned proceedings Seeking to vacate the said order, respondents had taken out an Application, but the same was dismissed making the interim order absolute. [,earned Deputy Solicitor General Sri Gadi Praveen 5. Kumar, based on thc counter-affidavit filed by the \ I Commandan , CISF, BHEL, Hyderabad, sub:nits that the Director (Production), NMDC Limited, Hyderabad reported against petit,oner. accordingly, a fact-finding enrluiry' \^/as got conducted in u'hjr:h a primo facie case u,as exi;lr:d for taking action again st pctitioner. The matte r \ /as rcportcd to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. President of India who ordered initiation ol ;najor penalty proceedings; accordingll,, a charge memo datr:cl 01.O7-2011 u,as served along u,ith all relevant documents. lt is submitted, on reccipt ther,:ol, petitioner dcmanded copies of preliminary enquiry report <:r>nducted by Shri A.S. Nar'em, the then DIC, CISF, RTC, Bnrlai and Shri Zhoponeyi Zr-ro, Commandant, CISC, horvever, he uas informed that there is no provision to supply additional dorrrments to the charged offici,ll lor submitting written statetncnt,t[ defence at that stage, h: has either to admit or den,y the charge and additional do,:umcnts, if any would be providi:cl by Inquiry Ofhcer during enquiry. It is further submitted ttrzrt during Lhe enquiry, relcvrrnt <iocuments were provided to hi;n. According to learned I)eputy Solicitor General, petitioner w:ts afforded all reasonable opporLunities and even the UPS(l (a neutral Constiluted t;ody) to rvhom the case \ /as ref,:rred bv the ) t t' President of India lbr advice' after threadbare examination of case records, including defence of petitioncr observed that charge is Proved against him' The main grievance of petitioner as could be seen 6. from the above pleadings and arguments is I hat the entire enquiry was conducted in a prejudicial manner and with pre- determination to impose some penalty or the other just to affect his further promotrons' lt is slated that after submission of enquiry report dated 27 '06'2012' the Enquiry Officer issued notice dated 14 -Og '2lo12 asking him to attend enquiry again at NationallndustrialsecurityAcademy,Hyderabad;thenhe askedthemtoclarily-theneedo[enquiryuid-e|etterdaled |8.og.2o|2 but no reply was gigen; subsequently, after furnishing enquiry report' petttloner submitted remarks on 07 .O1.2O23 requesting not to give any credence to the report' It is further coYrtended that Enquiry Ofhcer was changed bY appointing one Shiv Kumar, Commandant on whom he expressed no conhdence by his letter dated Ol 'O2'2O12 btt of no use. He also requested the Enquiry Officer to examine the officers who conducted preliminary enquiry' but it was rejected I i \ (r by letter date 1 O 1 .O3.2012, hence the Enquiry O[.r,:er prejudiced and submittcrl biersed report. On the contrary, th,: Commandant in the coun .r slated, IN detail, the procedurr: ft-rllor.','ed in conducting cnquiry. They stated that due to zrdministrative reasons Shri ihiv Kumar was appointed as Enquirv Officer, u,ho was adviscd to keep in mind apprehension ,/grievance of pctitioner in .ctter dated O1.02.2012. It was also rrdmittcd that petitioner's r('(luest to qivc an opportunity to exafl nc the officer vgho conductt'd prelirninary enquiry rvas exarnincd try the Enquiry Ofii,'er and he was informed uide letter dated OI.O3.2O12 t rat sinct: the enquiries conductecl b1' rhe said off-rccr u.ere not included as listed documents, hc nced not be called in the <'nquiry. 'lhe Enquiry Offlcer submi,tcd impugned report w.hich was exzrmined and certain shorl c.om ings were obse rved and to the effect that Enquiry Officer issucd notices to P.Ws. and pet lroner; P.W.1 was residing in Dubai and petitior-rer expressed hrs unwillingness to attend Lhe hearing, hence the Enquiry Ofli,-cr submitted report. Respondc nts formally consulted UPriC rn hicl-r also opined that peLitiorrer failed to maintain absolute devotion to his dufy and is gui ty of covering up thc case o1 .tr1 attempt of theft. It was further observed tha[ 7 sri S.N. Singh, who was later found guil$r and charge-sheeted by NMDC authorities further strengthens the view that NMDC ofhcials and CISF personnel were hand-in glove in this pilferage racket; therefore, in view of the material facts avaiiable on record and as discussed above, charge against petitioner stands proved. UPSC is a neutral Constituted body to whom the case was referred by the President of India for advice' The said Commission after examination of the material before it, observed that the charge was proved against petitioner' Petitioner also has not attributed animosiLy to officials of the Commission. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the contention of learned Senior Counsel that enquiry was conducted in prejudicial manner cannot hold water'

7. Yet another objection taken by petitioner is that he was not supplied copies of preliminary enquiry report, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, for which, respondents submit that there is no provision to supply additional documents to the charged officer for submitting his written statement of defence and at that stage, he has to either admit or deny the charge and the same would be provided \ \_ r i 8 during the r:ourse of enquiry and accordinglly, additionat documents d,:manded by petitioner and found relevant '.rvere provided to him. Admittedty, the preliminary enqr-riry report was issued in r-s-. pe ct of the three employees who ra,e re a lready imposed suit:rble punishment; the present charge memo was issued to petitioner based on the report of the Director (Production), NMDC Limited, Hyderabad, accorclingly , a fact- finding enquirv was got conducted in which a prima facie casc was existed fo - taking action against petitioner bua not based on the preliminan. enquiry report. In view of the sarne, petitioner,s conLention carnot be accepted. l, S. In thi's'contexl, it is not out of place to remind that it is trite lau that ordinarily, the findings recc rded by the Inquiry Ofhcer should not be interfered by the appellerte authoriff or br. the writ court, however, when _he hnding o[ guilt recorded bv Inquiry Ofhcer are based on perversity, the samc can zrlr,-ays be interfered (see Union of .India u. p. Gunasekharanl, State of Haryana a. Ratto;n Singh2 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and. Sewerage Board u. ' 1:o ts t 1t9ll )1 )2 SCC 6I O SCC ,19 I I T.T. Murali Babu3l.ln the instant case, no such perversity was found in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, as confirmed by thc UPSC in their Advice. The President of lndia is the appointing/ disciplinary authority in respect o[ petitioner, hence, on behalf of the said Authority, Deputy Inspector General (Pers) signed the order. This Court finds no iltegalily in the order impugned, hence, of the opinion that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. -9. costs.

10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed 3 2bl,) + Scc loi SD/.N. RAJAGOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 ffi 33 3 S,Ii 3,r? !i'i'"?'J,l;fji3"iE I3"H,?k Two CD CoPies L GOW) [OPUC] TJ BS s HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 ORDER WP.No.15340 ot 2014 t Jc(, ,9 ( t 1t': i Sl.4 14 1lm 6 c+{I ( > 2 o L {+ a DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS crq' 4 \6