Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nepal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2015
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
19.08.2015
(PP)
W. P. No.32353 (W) of 2014
Nepal Singh
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. K. B. S. Mahapatra,
Mr. Abhishek Paul
.....for the petitioner.
Mr. Subrata Roy
....for the respondent nos.1-5.
The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding is the final order of removal of the petitioner from service, read with the order of Appellate Authority and the revisional order passed subsequently. The reason for the petitioner being removed from service is evident from the Article of Charge-I, which reads as follows:-
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I "An act highly prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force, in that CISF No.08230392 Constable/GD Nepal Singh of CISF Unit ASG Guwahati Airport, Guwahati had written an anonymous letter. The handwriting of Constable/GD Nepal Singh was verified and confirmed by Directorate of Forensic Science Guwahati, Assam. In the anonymous letter he had not only threatened Insp/Exe S. K. Jha for his life but also threatened for hijacking, bomb blast, 2 VIP Kidnapping and to repeat the incident like NAMDEV. He had also claimed to be close associate of ULFA and said "ULFA ZINDABAD". Thus he intentionally created an unnecessary fear and tension in the minds of the Force Personnel working along with him thereby vitiated the working atmosphere of the Force at unit level. Noting the seriousness of threat and the intentions of the individual the above act on the part of the CISF No.082303921 Constable/GD Nepal Singh of CISF Unit ASG Guwahati Airport, Guwahati is tantamount to gross misconduct, indiscipline, dereliction of duty, disobedience of instructions and unbecoming act of a member of disciplined Force like CISF. Hence the charge."
The entire disciplinary proceeding, which culminated in the order of removal of service, was conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner. The petitioner participated in the proceeding and based on all materials and evidence-on-record, the final order was passed on 14th January, 2014. To avoid prolixity, this Court refrains from reproducing what has been observed by the disciplinary authority prior to imposing the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner. It is evident that he came to the conclusion that the Article of Charge, as levelled against the petitioner, was proved on a careful analysis of all relevant facts, statement of witnesses, charged person and all exhibits/documents. The disciplinary authority came to a clear conclusion that the charged person could not produce any 3 convincing evidence/exhibits, which could prove that his misconduct, indiscipline act was justified. The disciplinary authority also observed that on the other hand, the prosecution side produced enough evidence and exhibits to prove misconduct, indiscipline act and disobedience of the order of the higher authority by the charged person, and hence inflicted the punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have preferred a statutory appeal against the final order dated 14th January, 2014, by filing an application on 24th January, 2014, addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of the Central Industrial Security Force Headquarter at Calcutta. The statutory Appellate Authority by an order dated 18th March, 2014, affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority while giving reasons in support of his decision. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Additional Director General of the Central Industrial Security Force on 15th April, 2014. The revisional petition was disposed of by the revisional authority which passed an order sometime in July, 2014, reaffirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the statutory appellate authority.
At the time of hearing of the matter, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in case of dismissal or removal of a member of the Central Industrial Security Force, the provision of 4 section 8(i) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, would be applicable. The facts and circumstances of the instant case will demonstrate that the petitioner was neither remiss nor negligent in discharging of his duty or unfit for the same.
However, a plethora of materials, which are on record, does not allow even an iota of doubt in the mind of this Court that the petitioner was unfit for discharging his duty as an uniformed member of a para-military force. His lack of discipline was so grave in nature that it did not inspire the confidence of the disciplinary authority to allow him to be retained in service. As such, sub- section (i) of section 8 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, is clearly applicable. That apart and in any event, the writ Court cannot be used as a Court of Appeal in a fact situation where the petitioner has availed all remedies provided within the framework of law. The instances for a person to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such a fact situation would be only where there was palpable perversity in the findings of the concerned authority or such findings were driven by a mala fide motive or smacked of arbitrariness on the face of it. None of these ingredients, however, are present in the instant case.5
As such, this Court is unable to interfere with the decision making process which culminated in the petitioner being removed from service.
The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)