Union Of India others v. Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned Central Government Standing

Judgment

1. This int ra- court appeal is filed by Union of I ndia challenging t he j udgm ent and order dat ed

18.11.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 768 of 2012. By t he said j udgm ent , writ pet it ion filed by respondent , challenging order of his com pulsory ret irem ent , was set - aside on t he ground t hat t he said order was passed in violat ion of provision cont ained in Sect ion 8 of t he Cent ral I ndust rial Securit y Force Act , 1968.

2. Operat ive port ion of t he im pugned j udgm ent dat ed 18.11.2014 is ext ract ed below: - “ 10.

11. I n view t hereof, t he writ pet it ion is allowed. The t wo orders dat ed 26.02.2011, passed by t he Com m andant , CI SF Unit BHEL, Haridwar and order dat ed 02.02.2012, passed by t he Assist ant I nspect or General/ Est t . being violat ive of Art icle 311( 2) of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia are hereby quashed. A m andam us is hereby reinst at e t he pet it ioner in service fort hw it h. issued t o t he respondent s t o 1

12. is however, t he above det erm inat ion, Having m ade provided t hat t he respondent s are always at libert y t o proceed against t he pet it ioner on m edical grounds but under t he procedure as provided under Rule 91B of t he CI SF Rules, 2001.”

3. Sect ion 8 of t he Cent ral I ndust rial Securit y Force Act , 1968, which is relevant in t he present case, is ext ract ed below: - “ 8 .D i sm i ssa l , r e m o v a l , e t c., o f m e m b e r s o f t h e Fo r ce: - Subj ect t o t he provisions of art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion and t o such rules as t he Cent ral Governm ent m ay m ake under t his Act , any supervisory officer m ay – ( i) dism iss, rem ove, order for com pulsory ret irem ent of or reduce in rank, any enrolled m em ber of t he Force whom he t hinks rem iss or negligent in t he discharge of his dut y, or unfit for t he sam e; or ( ii) award any one or m ore of t he follow ing punishm ent s t o any enrolled m em ber of t he Force who discharges his dut y in a careless or negligent m anner, t o who by any act of his own renders him self unfit for t he discharge t hereof, nam ely: - a) fine t o any am ount not exceeding seven days pay or reduct ion in pay scale; b) drill, ext ra guard, fat igue or ot her dut y c) rem oval deprivat ion of any special em olum ent . from any office of dist inct ion or d) wit hholding of increm ent of pay w it h or wit hout cum ulat ive effect . e) wit hholding of prom ot ion. f) censure.”

4. I t is not in disput e t hat neit her any enquiry was held nor opport unit y of hearing was given t o respondent before passing t he order of com pulsory ret irem ent against him , despit e t he provision cont ained in Sect ion 8( 1) of t he Act .

5. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat Rule 56( j ) of Fundam ent al Rules & Supplem ent ary Rules, applicable t o Cent ral Governm ent em ployees, enables t he Com pet ent Aut horit y t o ret ire any em ployee by giving him not ice of not less t han t hree m ont hs in writ ing or t hree m ont hs pay and allowances 2 lieu of such not ice. He t hus subm it s t he t hat Com pet ent Aut horit y exercised t his power under Sect ion 56( j ) of t he said Rules, and gave t hree m ont hs not ice t o t he respondent , t herefore, t here is no illegalit y or

infirm it y t he order of com pulsory ret irem ent and int erference m ade by learned Single Judge was not warrant ed t he fact s circum st ances of t he case. He furt her subm it s t hat t he service record of respondent was not sat isfact ory, as t here were as m any as eight een m inor penalt ies im posed upon him during his service career, besides one m aj or penalt y

6. Sect ion 56( j ) of Fundam ent al Rules & Supplem ent ary Rules, relied by t he appellant , ext ract ed below: - t he “ 5 6 ( j ) Not wit hst anding anyt hing cont ained appropriat e aut horit y shall, if it is of t he opinion t hat it is in t he public int erest so t o do, have t he absolut e r ight t o ret ire any Governm ent Servant by giving him not ice of not less t han t hree m ont hs in wr it ing or t hree m ont hs pay and allowances in lieu of such not ice: - t his rule, ( i) if he is, in charge ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ service or post in a subst it ut e, quasi- per m anent or t em porary capacit y and had ent ered Governm ent service before at t aining t he age of 35 years, aft er he has at t ained t he age of 50 years. ( ii) in any ot her case aft er he has at t ained t he age of fift y five years: Provided t hat not hing in t his clause shall apply t o a Governm ent servant referred t o in clause ( e) , who ent ered Governm ent service on or before t he 23 rd July, 1966.”

7. Art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia, which is incorporat ed by reference in Sect ion 8 of t he Cent ral I ndust rial Securit y Force Act , is reproduced below, for ready reference: - “ 3 1 1 . D i sm i ssa l , r e m o v a l o r r e d u ct i o n i n r a n k o f p e r so n s e m p l o y e d i n ci v i l ca p a ci t i e s u n d er t h e Un i o n o r a St a t e — 3 No person who is a m em ber of a civil service of t he Union ( 1) or an all- I ndia service or a civil service of a St at e or holds a civil post under t he Union or a St at e shall be dism issed or rem oved by an aut horit y subordinat e t o t hat by which he was appoint ed. ( 2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dism issed or rem oved or reduced in rank except aft er an inquiry in which he has been inform ed of t he charges against him and given a reasonable opport unit y of being heard in respect of t hose charges 2* * * : Provided t hat where it is proposed aft er such inquiry, t o im pose upon him any such penalt y, such penalt y m ay be im posed on t he basis of t he evidence adduced during such inquir y and it shall not be necessary t o give such person any opport unit y of m aking represent at ion on t he penalt y proposed: Provided furt her t hat t his clause shall not apply—] ( a) where a person is dism issed or rem oved or reduced in rank on t he ground of conduct which has led t o his convict ion on a cr im inal char ge; or ( b) where t he aut horit y em powered t o dism iss or rem ove a person or t o reduce him in rank is sat isfied t hat for som e reason, t o be recorded by t hat aut horit y in writ ing, it is not reasonably pract icable t o hold such inquiry; or ( c) where t he President or t he Governor, as t he case m ay be, is sat isfied t hat in t he int erest of t he securit y of t he St at e it is not expedient t o hold such inquir y. ( 3) I f, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a quest ion arises whet her it is reasonably pract icable t o hold such inquiry as is referred t o in clause ( 2) , t he decision t hereon of t he aut horit y em powered t o dism iss or rem ove such person or t o reduce him in rank shall be final.”

8. We are not im pressed by t he subm ission m ade by learned counsel for t he appellant . Cent ral I ndust rial Securit y Force was const it ut ed under Sect ion 3 of t he Cent ral I ndust rial Securit y Force Act , 1968. The punishm ent s, which can be im posed upon m em bers of t he force, are enum erat ed in Sect ion 8 of t he said Act . One of t he punishm ent , which can be im posed upon m em bers of force, ‘com pulsory ret irem ent ’. The opening sent ence of Sect ion 8 indicat es t hat provision cont ained in Art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion would be applicable whenever t he 4 Com pet ent Aut horit y proposes t o im pose any of t he punishm ent enum erat ed in Clause ( i) of Sect ion 8, including com pulsory ret irem ent . Thus, t here is no room for doubt t hat in CI SF, com pulsory ret irem ent is a penalt y and im posing such penalt y, form al disciplinary enquiry would be needed.

9. A conj oint reading of Sect ion 8 of t he Cent ral I ndust rial Securit y Force Act wit h Art icle 311( 2) of t he Const it ut ion would reveal t hat before im posing punishm ent of com pulsory ret irem ent upon a m em ber of CI SF, disciplinary proceedings would have t o be inst it ut ed by inform ing t he Officer concerned of t he charges against him and he would be ent it led t o a reasonable opport unit y of being heard in respect of t hose charges. Since t he provision cont ained in Art icle 311( 2) of t he Const it ut ion was not followed while com pulsorily ret iring t he respondent , t herefore, learned Single Judge was j ust ified in set t ing aside t he order of com pulsory ret irem ent passed against him .

10. Thus, t here is no scope of int erference. Accordingly, t he appeal fails and is dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

10.06.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08 b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF 4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL 5