Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rambir Singh vs Uoi And Ors on 2 May, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:17688]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4232/2002
Rambir Singh, aged about 28 years, son of Shri Indal Singh,
resident of Village & Post Ronija, Tehsil Nadbai, District
Bharatpur-321602
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Ministry of Home through its
Secretary, Home Department, North Block, New Delhi.
2. District General of Police, Central Industrial Security Force,
C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Raod, New Delhi.
3. Dy. Inspector General, Central Security Force (Ministry of
Home Affairs), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City 827 001,
district Bokaro (Jharkhand).
4. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, (Ministry of
Home Affairs), Unit BSL, Bokaro Steel Plan, Bokaro Steel City
(Jharkhand).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal with
Ms. Anshu Kanwar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
RESERVED ON :: 22.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :: 02.05.2025
1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by penalty
order dated 24.10.2000, whereby he has been removed from
service as well as by charge-sheet dated 16.05.2000 on the basis
of which, after conducting enquiry the aforesaid removal order
dated 24.10.2000 has been passed. Petitioner has also assailed
the order dated 25.01.2001, whereby the appeal preferred by the
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17688] (2 of 12) [CW-4232/2002]
petitioner against the penalty order has been dismissed. He has
also prayed for consequential relief in the instant writ petition.
2. Petitioner has categorically averred that he was initially
appointed on the post of 'Constable' in Central Industrial Security
Force (for short, 'the CISF') on 10.08.1993 on probation for two
years. His services were confirmed vide order dated 10.05.1997.
3. Petitioner has also stated in the memo of writ petition that
one charge-sheet dated 16.05.2000 in exercise of powers under
CISF Rules, 1969 was served upon the petitioner, wherein the
imputation has been levelled against the petitioner; that on
08.03.2000 when he was discharging his duties at E-Samvaay,
then he was found indulging in quarrel with ASI U.C. Behara on
account of division of illegal money, which is a serious misconduct.
Petitioner has also come out with a case that the alleged illegal
money was never seized and such incident was also not recorded
in the daily diary on the same day. Despite there being no
legitimate piece of evidence, one charge-sheet dated 16.05.2000
was issued against the petitioner.
4. It is also contention of the petitioner that Enquiry Officer was
appointed to enquire into the allegation levelled in the charge-
sheet, however, the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in
a fair manner. Opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner
was not strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure. He
was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses, nor the persons
from whom alleged illegal money was procured by Shri U.C.
Behara and the petitioner, were produced in evidence. Even the
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17688] (3 of 12) [CW-4232/2002]
cash currency which was alleged cause of verbal altercation
between Shri U.C. Behara and the petitioner was also not
produced in evidence. Statements of Shri U.C. Behara, who was
also a delinquent and was involved in the same incident with same
charges, were taken into consideration and used against the
petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and only on the basis of
statements of one Shri A.K. Upadhyay, the Enquiry Officer has
erroneously assumed that the petitioner was guilty of charges
levelled against him.
5. Although, initially it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that even copy of charge-sheet was not served upon the petitioner
yet after verifying from the record, such ground has not been
pressed later on by the counsel for the petitioner.
6. It was also mentioned that when there were composite
interlinked and similar allegations against the petitioner as well as
Shri U.C. Behara; yet Shri U.C. Behara was produced as
management witness and the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the
statements of such other delinquent Shri U.C. Behara. As per
petitioner, the statements of Shri U.C. Behara, in the aforesaid
circumstances were not reliable.
7. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that when the
petitioner and Shri U.C. Behara were alleged to be involved in the
same incident, then in such circumstances, joint enquiry ought to
have been conducted, however, quite strangely separate enquiries
were conducted against the petitioner and Shri U.C. Behara. The
petitioner has been saddled with one of the harshest punishment
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17688] (4 of 12) [CW-4232/2002]
of service jurisprudence i.e. removal from service; whereas lesser
degree of punishment of compulsory retirement with full pension
has been awarded to Shri U.C. Behara, which in itself shows that a
fair procedure has not been adopted by the respondents and
Disciplinary Authority has caused hostile discrimination with the
petitioner.
8. It has also been vehemently argued on behalf of the
petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has given findings against the
petitioner only on the basis of surmises and conjectures and in
fact there was no real analysis of the material on record. Hence,
on the basis of such faulty, biased and defective enquiry report,
where even basic principles of natural justice were not followed
and there were serious violation of the procedure prescribed under
the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority has committed serious error
of law and fact in relying upon such an enquiry report in order to
arbitrarily punish the petitioner.
9. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner
that the appeal filed by the appellant has also not been objectively
considered by the Appellate Authority and the specific ground
showing serious defects and lapses in the enquiry were not taken
into account by the Appellate Authority. Appeal filed by the
petitioner was rejected in a cursory and mechanical manner by the
Appellate Authority. Hence, as per the petitioner, such inquiry
proceedings, defective charge sheet, penalty order and appellate
order warrant effective interference of this Court in the instant
writ petition.
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17688] (5 of 12) [CW-4232/2002]
10. On the other side, it has been argued by learned counsel for
the respondents that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
totally misconceived for the reason that the petitioner was
member of a disciplined Force constituted under a Central Act,
where decree of discipline is much higher than any other civil
service. However, the petitioner was involved in a heinous
misconduct, where despite being member of disciplined force, he
was indulged in procuring illegal money from some unsocial
elements, who, at the cost of illegal money, were granted
unauthorised liberty to collect scrap material from site in question.
It has been stated by the counsel for the respondents that such
misconduct of the petitioner was reported immediately and the
competent authority took a conscious decision to initiate a
departmental enquiry by way of issuing a charge sheet to the
petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
charge-sheet issued to the petitioner contains specific,
unambiguous and explicitly clear charges against the petitioner,
which were duly communicated to him in order to afford
opportunity to defend. However, even during the enquiry, the
petitioner could not succeed in defending the charges.
12. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the
respondents that the contention of the petitioner is factually
incorrect that opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was not
afforded to him. It has been submitted that such statement is
(Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17688] (6 of 12) [CW-4232/2002]
contrary to record and in fact, due opportunity to cross examine
the witnesses was given to the petitioner.
13. It was also submitted that the Enquiry Officer, on the basis of
material on record, evidence collected and the statements of the
witnesses, has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner
was guilty of serious charges and grave misconduct.
14. It has also been submitted by counsel for the respondents
that there was no provision under the Rules to conduct joint enquiry. However, both the delinquent persons i.e. the petitioner as well as Shri U.C. Behara, who were involved in the same incident were served with charge-sheets separately and Shri U.C. Behara became a witness in the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner, whereas the petitioner was also a witness in the enquiry against Shri U.C. Behara. Thus, there was almost same set of evidence in both the enquiries against the petitioner as well as against Shri U.C. Behara.
15. It was also clarified by the counsel for the respondents that the alleged unsocial elements, who were collecting scrap from the site and from whom the illegal money was procured, could not be produced later on before the Enquiry Officer for the reason that they immediately ran away from the site after witnessing verbal altercation between the petitioner and Shri U.C. Behara and sensing danger of being caught.
16. Counsel for the respondents has also submitted that there was no requirement to seize and produce the cash currency which (Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:17688] (7 of 12) [CW-4232/2002] was distributed between the petitioner and Shri U.C. Behara, for the reason that eye witnesses were very much present at the spot and their statements have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry.
17. Counsel for the respondents also stated that thus, the enquiry conducted against the petitioner under the Rules by following each and very aspect of principles of natural justice as well as the statutory Rules cannot be said to be erroneous, defective, biased or even perverse.
18. Counsel for the respondents also submits that there were reasons for awarding different punishment to the petitioner as well as to Shri U.C Behara in their respective disciplinary proceedings Shri U.C. Behara had put in a longer service in the respondent- department and his retirement was also due in next coming few years, whereas the petitioner had hardly put in seven years in the department and even then he was involved in such a heinous misconduct. While passing penalty of removal against the petitioner, it was also taken into account that earlier also in a short span seven years of service, the petitioner has been penalized with minor and major penalties.
19. In view of the above, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Disciplinary Authority has not committed any mistake in passing the penalty of removal against the petitioner.
20. As per counsel for the respondents, the Appellate Authority has also meticulously dealt with each and every ground raised by (Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:17688] (8 of 12) [CW-4232/2002] the petitioner-appellant and after analyzing all the grounds, the appeal filed by the petitioner, having no merit, was rightly rejected.
21. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record.
22. Contentions raised by the petitioner that there are serious lapses in the enquiry proceedings on account of not providing sufficient opportunity to defend in as much as not allowing the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses, is apparently against the material on record. Reference of such cross examination has been given in the enquiry report in which it has been stated that the statements of management witnesses were recorded in presence of delinquent and opportunity was also given to him to cross examine the witnesses. Even the appellate order also discloses the said fact that opportunity of cross examine was given to the petitioner. However, in the entire writ petition, the petitioner has nowhere questioned such findings of facts given by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Appellate Authority. In absence of challenge to such findings, the stand taken by the petitioner with regard to not allowing cross examination is not sustainable and is hereby rejected.
23. Next submission raised by the petitioner with regard to not seizing the cash currency allegedly involved in the incident also is unsustainable for the reason that the impugned proceedings were not criminal proceedings, where production of seized money was indispensible for proving the guilty of accused. In the instant case, (Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:17688] (9 of 12) [CW-4232/2002] where there were eye witnesses present at the spot and they also unshakably deposed before the Enquiry Officer to support the charges levelled against the petitioner, merely not seizing or producing the cash currency in question, would not create any doubts over the fairness or correctness of the enquiry proceedings.
24. Since there was no provision in the CISF Rules for conducting joint enquiry hence, in absence of any such specific Rule of joint enquiry, it was not conducted jointly against the petitioner and Shri U.C. Behara. However, it has come on record that separate enquiries were conducted against the petitioner and Shri U.C. Behara for the same incidents. In the enquiry against the petitioner, Shri U.C. Behara was produced as a witness and the petitioner has deposed against Shri U.C. Behara in the enquiry against him. Thus, where the similar material having been considered in both the enquiries, may be separately, only on account of the fact that the joint enquiry was not conducted, no interference can be made in the disciplinary proceedings. As regards alleged discrimination between the penalties awarded to the petitioner as well as to Shri U.C. Behara, sufficient explanation has been given by learned counsel for the respondents, in as much as, that since in a short span of hardly seven years of service, the petitioner has been penalised with three minor and one major penalty, however, even thereafter, he had showed no improvement whatsoever in his conduct, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the charges and past conduct of the petitioner, the (Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:17688] (10 of 12) [CW-4232/2002] Disciplinary Authority has thought it fit and proper to award penalty of removal against the petitioner. Whereas so far as Shri U.C. Behara is concerned, while hearing on the question of quantum of punishment it has been considered that Shri U.C. Behara had put in long 20 years in service, therefore, his long career prompted the Disciplinary Authority in his case to take a lenient view and hence, penalty of compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits has been imposed upon him. Thus, under these circumstance, looking to the different background and past conduct as well as length of service of both the employees, no parity can be claimed by the petitioner and hence, ground of discrimination is not at all made out.
25. I have also examined that the Appellate Authority has also given cogent reasons and rational findings while dismissing the appeal and therefore, no interference is warranted in the appellate order also.
26. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhupendra Singh reported in AIR 2024 SC 4034, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in no uncertain terms that writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as an appellate body so as to reassess the evidence and the scope of judicial review in a writ petition against disciplinary matters is only limited to the cases where enquiry is based upon no evidence whatsoever and there is manifest patent illegalities in the proceedings. In the instant case also, petitioner has utterly (Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:17688] (11 of 12) [CW-4232/2002] failed to point out any such illegality or deficiency in the proceedings.
27. In the case of Chatrapal vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in SLP(C) No.11975/2019, decided on 15.02.2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the earlier legal position that under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the conclusion in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law. The writ court would also not go into the adequacy of the evidence or even reliability of the evidence. In writ jurisdiction, the Court shall also not interfere to correct the error of fact, howsoever grave it may appear to be; nor would it go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
28. In the light of the above, where after examining the entire record and legal proposition, this Court finds that there is no perversity, arbitrariness, biaseness or patently illegality in the disciplinary proceedings; nor could the petitioner establish any manifest violation of procedure contemplated under the Rules or even violation of principles of natural justice, this Court does not find any scope for interference in the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, being devoid of any merit and substance, is liable to be rejected.
29. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. (Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:17688] (12 of 12) [CW-4232/2002]
30. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J pcg/09 (Downloaded on 06/05/2025 at 09:44:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)