Lhe High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the follgwing: ORDER I THD HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.81O2 of 2OLS ORDER: This writ petition is iiled with the following relief: "... to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or appropriate (i) declaring the proceedings vide order No.V- 15015/O9lL86RlSZ/2012-4254 dated 17.O5.2012 issued by the 2"a respondent is illegal, arbitrary ald unjust; (ii) declaring the proceedings vide order No.V- 1s014/09/L&R/ SS/App /Rsl2Or2-222 dated 29.6.2012 issued by the 2"d respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust; (iii) declaring the proceedings vide order No.V- 1 1 O 14 /62 / l-&,R / 20 12- 727 6 dated 24. I2.2O 12 issued by the 3d respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unjust; (iv) and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benehts and (v) and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems flt a-nd proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Brief facts: Petitioner, while working as Constable in Visakhapatnam Unit, was issued charge memorandum on 2O.O7.2Ol l wherein Article of Charge frarned against petitioner is as follows: 2 \- ..1 "ARTICLE OF CHARGE CISF No.882330O19 Const/WC Ranveer Singh of CISF Unit VSP Visakhapatnam was detailed for Internal Security duty at Telangana in Coy No.4O 1. On 30.06.2011 at about 12:.30 hrs he went to Venkataramana Restaurant ald Bar, Na.lgonda, for taking lunch where he consumed alcohol and misbehaved/abused the staJl of the Restaurant under influence of liquor over issue of non-pa5,'rnent of food bill. The act committed by Const/WC Ranveer Singh in a public place amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline which is unbecoming of a member of an Armed Force of the Union."

3. The disciplinary authority i.e., Commandant, by order, dated 15.11.2011, imposed the fbllou,ing punishment: "...10. Therefore, I, the undersigned, in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Rule-32 read in conjunction with Schedule-l and with Rule-34 (v) of CISF Rules 200 1, imposes the penalty of "REI)UCTION OF PAY BY ONE STAGE FROM Rs.10,200/ 'lQ Rs.9.9oO/' lN THE PAY BAND-1 OF Rs.5,200- Rs.2O, 2OO WITH GRADE PAY OF Rs.2.OOO/- FOR A PERI OD OF ONE YtrAR WITH IMMEDIATE EFFE()T UPON NO.88233OOI9 CONSTABLE/WC RANVEER SINGH OF CISF UNIT VSP VISAKHAPATNAM. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT HE WILL NOT EARN INCREMENT OF PAY DUzuNG THE PERIOD OF REDUCTION AND THAT ON EXPIRY OF THIS PERIOD THE REDUCTION WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF POSTPONING HIS FUTURE INCREMENTS OF PAY."

4. The appellate authority i.e., Deputy Inspector General by order, dated 17.05.2012, exercising the powers under Rule-54 of Central Industrial Securilr Force Rules, 2OOl, (for short "CISF Rules,_-20O1"), enhanced the I punishment to dismissal from service. On an appeal, lnspector General by order, dated 29.06.20i2, dismissed the appeal. Further, on a revision, the revisional authority i.e., Director General vide order, dated 24.12.2012, upheld the order of appellate authority which is as follows: "... NOW THEREFORE, I find no reason, whatsoever to interfere with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appeliate Authority and therefore, RDJECT the revision petilion dated 06.08. I 2 ol the petitioner being devoid of any merit."

5. Present writ petition is liled challenging the orders, dated 1 7.05.20 12, 29.06.2O 12 and 24.12.2072.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner rendered 24 years of service. That on the date of incident, he did not consume any alcohol and that he had gone to a Bar and Restaurant for having lunch and for no fault of his, Article of Charge was framed against him, was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. It is contended that the punishment imposed is not in accordance with law and is arbitrary and illegal. 7 . Learned counsel for respondents submitted that Article of Charge was framed, enquiry conducted ald 4 ..1 enquiry report was submitted on 24.10.2011. Disciplinary authority uide order, dated 15.11.20 11, imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year vvith cumulative effect. It is further submitted that Deputy lnspector General (DIG) issued show cause notice on 29.03.2012, DIG was of the opinion that the act committed was a serious offence and that disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view. It is also submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service was adequately justified by proper reasoning ancl application of mind uide order, dated 17 .O5.2012. B. It is submitted that petitioner filed appeal and review petitions and that appeal and review petitions wcre rejected vide orders, dated 29.06.2012 and 24.12.2012. lt is further submitted that order of dismissal from service was commensurate to the gravity of charge framed. It is a-lso submitted that petitioner should not have consumed alcohol while on duty, which amounts to serious misconduct. It is submitted that appellate authority rightly revisited the order of disciplinary authorit5r and imposed ) the punishment of dismissal from service. Learned counsel supported the orders of appellate authority and the revisional authority.

9. Heard learned counsels, perused the record ald considered the rival submissions.

10. Petitioner, while working as Constable at Visakhapatnam Unit, for having lunch in a nearby hotel went to Venkataramana Restaurant and Bar and consumed liquor at the Restaurant (as stated in the order of disciplinary authority). That he abused the staff of the Restaurant in filthy language under the influence of alcohol (as stated in the order of disciplinary authority). Disciplinary authority i.e., the Commandant, found petitioner guilty of Article of Charge and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage with immediate effect ald that on expiry of period, reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments. I 1. Appellate authority was of the opinion that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of 6 ..1 charge and exercising powers vested under Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 2001, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service vide order. dated 17.O5.2012

12. On an appeal, the Inspector General vide order, dated 29.O6.2012 (Ex.P6l, passed the following order: "... 1 1. lt is found that the DE against the appellant had been conducted as per laid down procedure and in the DE, the appellant had been given all reasonable opportunities to defend his case. The charge framed against him has been proved with adequate evidence and the penalty awarded to him by the DIG/SZ on suo-moto review is found commensurate with the gravity of the charge. Hence, I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the penalty awarded to him by the DIG/SZ on suo-mote review. His appeal petition is, therefore, considered and rejected being devoid of merit."

13. In revision, the revisional authority uide order, dated

24.12.2012, rejected the revision and held as follows: ".... 5. AND WHEREAS, the petitioner has r-row submitted revision petition dated 06.08. 12 before the undersigned as Revisioning Authority mainly contending that:- i) iii) That he did not misbehave abuse .and made conflict with the staff of Restaurant on issue of payment of bill. That due to misbehaviour and use of un- parliamentar5r language by Const. MK Singh and D Waghela at hotel, a-lleged scuffle took place. That due to quarrel and lighting, Const. MK Singh and D Waghela sustained injuries on their lip, facc and head respectively. He never sustained injury. 7 ir) v) That he has served 24 years unblemished semce in the department and said penalty has severely hurt him as a result he became hopeless/ homeless. That he has no other source of income to survive along with his school going children. vi) Finally he has requested to give him a chance to serve in the department a-nd will never commit such type of act in future.

6. AND WHEREAS I have gone through the relevant case frles arld contentions raised by the petitioner through instant revision petition. Contention of the petitioner that he did not misbehaved with anyone have no merit as PW- 3 & 4, Constable MK Singh. D Waghela stated in the departmental enquiry that they together with the petitioner went to Venkata-ramanna Restaurant on 30.06.1I and ordered for Royal Stag whiskey, beer and non veg food items. After meal scuffle took place there between them and the staff of Restaurant on the payment of bill. Further, PW-4, Constable D Waghela a.lso deposed that petitioner in intoxicated condition started heated arguments with the staff of restaurant, resulting the incident. Further, taking alcoholic drink is not expected from a member of Armed Force while on Interna-l Security Duty at a time when the enLire contingent was ready to move to another location. His contention that scuffle took place due to the misbehavior of Constable MK Singh arrd D Waghela, is to mislead the authority as the petitioner was involved in the said incident along with other CISF personnel. The petitioner being senior and experienced personnel should have behaved in a more appropriate manrier which he failed miserably. As regards his contention that he did not sustain injury, has also no merit as he managed to escape from the scene when the incident turned violent. He has rendered.24 years of service in CISF but it is not unblemished as claimed. He is having two minor punishments recorded as per his service book. It is also noticed that even if the restaurant staff was the aggressor party, the petitioner arrd his colleagues, being members of the disciplined Force, should have maintained restraint rather than behaving in a highhalded manner. Such conduct by Force personnel is undesirable and brings disrepute to the orgarization. The petitioner has not brought out any new facts which may change the complexion of t}re case. The disciplinary ./.- 8 1 L.\l proceeding has been drawn as per laid down proccdure and the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity during course of enquiry to defend himself but hc has failed to disprove the charge. The instant penalty awarded by the concerned Authority to the petitioner is proportionate with the gravity of the misconduct.

7. NOW THEREFORE, I hnd no reason, whatsoever, the orders passed interfere with by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority and therefore, RE IECT the revision petrtion dated 06.08.12 of the petitioner being devoid of arry merit."

14. It is contended by counsel for petitioner that appellate authority passed the order reversing the order of disciplinary authority by suo motu ar.d dismissed the petitioner from service on irrational grounds and that the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charge leveiled against the petitioner. It is contended that petitioner rendered 24 vears of service.

15. Learned counsel for respondents presented written instructions to this Court, wherein it is stated that petitioner received the entire amounts due to him and the details are as follows: "... Kindly refer to Commandant/LO CISF Unit BHEL Hyderabad vide message No.(5244) dated 06.11.2024 on the subject matter.

02. In this regard, as desired, the particulars of amount paid to Ex-Const/WCR Ranveer Singh on 9 Dismissal from Service of this unit are given below for further necessary action please:- SL No. Particulars Amount paid Bill No OI o2 03 04 05 06 Salary for the pcriod from 01.O5.20I2 to 31.05.2012 ECL for the year 2Ol2 (2"d Ouartcr) MACP Arrears 01.0r.2006 24.O5.20t2 GPI.' Fi.al Payrnent w.e. f. LS ,244 / s,9t9l r ,28,185/ I t,67 ,2931- CGEGTS Final Payment to,ao2l tusk Fund Pa1'rnent Final 23,2s7 / - 1 l8 /05/ Estt/vSP/ 2012-t3 268 /O7 /Estl./vsP/ 2012 L3 309/o8lEstt/VSP/ 2014 t5 | 2t 5/O7 /CPF- FP/VSP/ l6- 17 340/9/CCEGTS/ r6- t7

16. Petitioner received all the benefits, question which falls for consideration is whether the order of disciplinary authority, dated 15.ll.2Ol1, having subjected to suo motu revision by appellate authority invoking powers under Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 200 1, is in proper perspective or not. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the order of appellate authority, dated 17.05.2012, which is as follows: "3. AND WHEREAS, on meticulous analysis of the case, I was of the considered view that the punishment awarded was not commensurate to the act of misconduct committed by the charged offrcial but, the Disciplinary Authority took it very leniently ald awarded the impugned penalty without adequate justification. As such, I proposed to enhance the punishment to that of "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE" and issued a show cause notice on 29-O3-2OI2 giving reasonable opportunity to the charged official to represent against the show-cause notice including personal hearing with the under-signed. The cha-rged officia.l met the undersigrred in his request room on O9-4-2O12 and explained his grievances. He l0 acknowledged the show cause notice on O3-O4-2O12 and submitted his representation dated l2-O4-2O 12 against ttre Show Cause Notice. In representation, the charged official rarsed the following pleas which are discussed hereunder in seriaLim: - a) During his 24 years of service, he never did sur:h offence ald will not commit in future. Disciplinary Authority has already awarded a penalty which is a higher one. > As per the statements of all PWs (PW-0 I Coy. Commander, Insp/E B.N. Azad, PW-2 CHM. HC/GD Alexander Joseph, PW-O3 Constable M.K. Singh and PW-4 Constable D. Waghela), it is clear that the charged official along with 04 others went to Venkataramana Bar & Restaurant, Nalgonda on 3O- 6-2071 at about 1230 hrs. where they took alcoholic drinks and non-vegetarian food for which Bill for Rs.180O/- was given for pal,rnent. The PW-4 had no sufficient money for payment and initially paid the available amount of Rs.600/-. In the mean time, 02 personnel out of 05 had gone out of the restaurant. Later, PW-3 left for bringing money by wirhdraw;il from ATM and the remaining 02 personnel including charged ollicial stood up relaxingly in a casu:rl manner. On seeing the situation, the hotel stalf thought t]lat the personnel were escaping the restaurant one by one to avoid payment of the bill. it is also clear from the statements of PW-3 and PW- I that the charged official under the influence crf alcohol started hot argument with waiter of the restaurant regarding payment of the bill, resultantly, the scullle took place in which PW-3 and PW-4 sustained injuries. It is also on record that the charged ollicial went to the restaurant at his own ald consumed alcoholic drinks during duty hours ald involved in a scuffle with the hotel staff & civilians which is undesirable. The act committed by the charged offrcia-l is one of serious offences and is not tolerable in a disciplined Force like CISF. But, disciplinary authority had taken a lenient vieu, ancl awarded the impugned penalty without adequatc Justifrcation. Notwithstanding the fact that tht: charged offrcial has accepted his misconduct ald assured tl.at he would not commit such misconducl in future, the act committed by the charged official is t not tolerable in disciplined force like CISF as it has tarnished the image of the Force in the eyes of genera-l public. b) He is a low paid employee and all his family depends on his salary. His daughter has attained the age of marriage. He has no any other source of income except his service. > If he was so worried about his family and future, he should not have committed such misconduct which tarnished the image of the department in the eyes of general public. Hence, the act of charged oflicial does not deserve any sympathy. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any reason either to drop or reduce the proposed penalty as per the show cause notice dated 29-03-2072. I, therefore, enhance tlle punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide order No. (10566) dated 15/Ll/2OII to tJ:at of "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE" as proposed in the show cause notice dated 29-O3-2OI2 to meet the ends of justice. The enhanced punishment will ta-ke effect from the date of receipt of this order."

17. Appellate authority, while exercising its re'riewing powers in enhancing the punishment from that of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one yea-r with cumulative effect to that of dismissal from service, should have adopted a meticulous approach in analyzing the evidences, statements of witnesses and the finding of the enquiry officer and the reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority. Except expressing opinion that a lenient view has been taken and that petitioner accepted the misconduct and that the act comElitted by petitioner is 12 not tolerable in disciplinary forces effecting the majesty of forces in the eyes of general public, no other reason is forthcoming.

18. On al appeal, the Inspector General vide order, dated 29.06.2012, rejected the appeal. Revisional authority by order, dated 24.12.2012, confirmed the order of appellate authority. It is observed from the order of revisional authority that revisional authority four-rd favour with the order of appellate authority that invocation of Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 2001, was appropriate and held that Company Commandant had given permission to petitioner only to take lunch from a nearby hotel and return to Police camp Nalgonda, as the Company was supposed to leave on 30.06.2011, but petitioner under the influence of a-lcohol along with two others, misbehaved with the staff of restaurant over the issue of non-payment of bill and held that such misconduct is impermissibie and held that dismissal of service was commensurate with the gravity of offence. ---7 t3

19. Be that as it may, the authorities, while invoking power under Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 200 1, have to be more meticulous, careful and cautious, while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, as dismissal lrom service would not only inflict the petitioner with a stigma, but he would also be not entitled lor any benefits and employment in future. While adopting such a course of punishment, the authorities invoking suo motu powet under Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 200 1, have to examine the entire factual matrix from a rational point of view, which appears to be missing in the present case.

20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that order, dated

17.O5.2O12, is not a reasoned order. Though it has been contended that if the order demonstrates that petitioner was guilty of the charge, it would be enough, this Court is not impressed by the contention advanced. On a perusal of the order, dated 17.05.2012, it is observed that except narrating the facts and concluding that a lenient view has been taken and misconduct of peti$oaer is not tolerable, l -'..l nothing 1S forthcoming in the order. Such an order without any cogent reasons for dismissal from service is not tenable. In the light of the observations made, the order is liable to be set aside and is set aside. Needless to state that ord&s of Inspector General and Director General, dated 29.06.2012 and 24.12.2072, rejecting the appeal and revision application, are a-lso liable to be set aside and a,re set aside. Orders dated 17.O5.2O12,

29.06.2012 and 24.12.2012 are set aside. 21 . Interests of justice would be met, if petitioner is permitted to make a representation to Deputy Inspector General, who passed the order of dismissal from service. Deputy Inspector General is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the representation made by petitioner by considering the entire facts in proper perspective, taking a rational approach and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of representation of petitioner -t I l5 t

22. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. There sha,ll be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stard closed. Witness THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE, Monday, The Sixth Dayof January Two Thousand and Twenty Five //TRUE COPYII SD/-N. SRIHARI UTY REGISTRAR () ECTION OFFICER The Director General, Central lndustrial Security Affairs) Government of lndia Block No.1 3, CGO C Delhi 1 10001. , Force (Ministry of Home omplex, Lodhi. Road New To, 1

2. The lnspecter General, Central lndustrial Security Force (Ministry of, Home Affairs), Government of lndia CISF SS Hqrs. Chennai

3. Deputy lnspector General, Central lndustriat Security. Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), Governmgnt of lndia South Zone, Chennai

4. CommandanUDisciplinary Authority, eeqtral lndustlial Security Ferce Unit Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Visakhapatnam 6 O.ne QQ to Sd D. L Pandu, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Gadi Pravpen Kumar, Oeputy Solicilor General of lndia loPUcl

7. Tyvo 0D Copies TJ BS / HIGH COURT DATED:06101t2025 ORDER WP.No.B102 of 2015 (( -:l -) S tA t 1 flPA0$ ?025 , o ,lrT o t- +a- , ALLQWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?/z 3 ,/+ ,/ls