Orissa High Court
Arvind Kumar Singh vs Deputy Inspector General on 24 July, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.28246 of 2011
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Arvind Kumar Singh .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Deputy Inspector General, CISF, .... Opposite Party (s)
Eastern Zone HQ Patna & Ors.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pabitra Kumar Nayak, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Pradhan, CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-03.07.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -24.07.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the orders issued by the Opposite Parties, which impose disciplinary action against the Petitioner by way of salary reduction.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 1 of 9 Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jul-2024 16:53:40
(i) The Petitioner is employed by the Opposite Parties as a member of the Force in CISF Unit TTPS, Lalpaniya, Bokaro, Jharkhand. He was specially assigned the duty on the third shift on 05.05.2010 and 06.05.2010, at around midnight near the sub-station.
(ii) During this shift, a scrap roller belonging to the management was loaded onto a truck by some unknown individuals using a crane. The petitioner did not prevent such action nor did he report it to the control room or any competent authority.
(iii) Consequently, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was served with a notice outlining the charges of gross negligence under Rule 37 of CISF Rules, 2001 (Amendment Rules, 2007). The petitioner responded, stating that he was not instructed to protect public property beyond his duty area as per standing orders/ instrcuctions.
(iv) Being dissatisfied with the response of the present petitioner, the disciplinary authority penalised him by reducing his salary from Rs.7600/- Grade Pay Rs.2000/- to Rs.7320/- Grade Pay Rs.2000/- for three years.
(v) Being aggrieved, the petitioner then appealed to the Commandant of CISF Unit, CTPS Chandrapura (Opposite Party No.2), citing various mitigating factors, but the appeal was rejected. Subsequently, he filed a revision petition to the Deputy I.G. of CISF, Eastern Zone, HQ Patna (Opposite Party No.3), which was also rejected, finding no mitigating circumstances to interfere with the disciplinary authority's decision. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Page 2 of 9 Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jul-2024 16:53:40
(vi) Aggrieved by the actions of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner preferred this Writ Petition praying for quashing of the disciplinary action and for restoration of his previous salary and promotional prospects.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioner submitted that the alleged theft was not within his knowledge and it occurred outside his area of duty.
(ii) He further submitted that as per Standing Order 8(f)/ the petitioner's duty was to prevent antisocial elements from entering the duty post, not to protect areas beyond his assigned zone. He additionally claimed that no specific oral or written instruction was given to him to protect the property beyond his designated duty area.
(iii) He contended that the incident occurred more than 50 meters away from his duty post, in an area not covered by his responsibilities.
(iv) He further contended that the final order of punishment was issued by the Disciplinary Authority without giving him a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing, demonstrating vindictiveness and lack of due process.
(v) The Petitioner argued that the revisional court's findings were based on non-application of mind, as the allegations pertain to an area outside his duty zone. The Revisional Authority should have given due importance to his submission in right perspective.Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Page 3 of 9 Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jul-2024 16:53:40 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) It is submitted that the incident and subsequent disciplinary actions occurred in Jharkhand, under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, not the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
(ii) It is further submitted that the Petitioner was responsible for safeguarding the management's property and was expected to monitor the area beyond his immediate duty post. The Petitioner's failure to act upon noticing suspicious activities bear by his post and not informing the control room or competent authority was a clear dereliction of duty.
He cannot shirk his responsibility by stating that the theft was outside the post.
(iii) It is contended that disciplinary action followed due process under Rule 37 of CISF Rules, 2001. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to submit a representation against the charge memorandum and was not satisfied by the Authority.
(iv) He further contended that the Standing Orders for the Electric Sub-
Station duty post required the sentry to watch for activities outside the immediate duty area and report any kind of suspicious activities. The Petitioner failed to comply with the said instructions.
(v) It was argued that the absence of the Petitioner's name in the FIR lodged by the management for the theft is irrelevant to the departmental proceedings. The disciplinary action was based on the Signature NotPetitioner's Verified failure to perform his duty properly and responsibly. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Page 4 of 9 Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jul-2024 16:53:40
(vi) He further argued that the Petitioner's own statements during the preliminary inquiry indicated that he had noticed the theft but failed to prevent it or report it. He provided an "OK" report to the shift in-charge despite noticing unauthorized activities. Accordingly, the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties prays for the dismissal of this Writ Petition.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents presented before this Court. Before delving into the merits of the case, the pivotal issue that must be addressed is whether this Court possesses the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter. This Court may deem it appropriate to advert to some of the leading precedents on the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
6. In this regard, the Apex Court had the occasion to address the issue of the territorial jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226(2) in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra1. While discussing the constitutional amendment made to Article 226(2), the Court articulated its findings in para 37:
"37. The object of the amendment by inserting clause (2) in the article was to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao [AIR 1953 SC 210] and to restore the view held by the High Courts in the decisions cited above. Thus the power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which "the cause of action/ wholly or in part/ arises"
Signature Not1 (2000) Verified 7 SCC 640.
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Page 5 of 9 Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jul-2024 16:53:40 and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. The amendment is thus aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs issued by different High Courts.."
7. Similarly, in the case of Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair Vs. Narayanan Nair and Ors.2, in its explanation of the expression "cause of action," the Apex Court referred to and approved the definition provided by Halsbury's Laws of England in paragraphs 16 and 17:
"16. The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact/ comprises in "cause of action".
17. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) it has been stated as follows0 "'Cause of action' has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. 'Cause of action' has also been taken to mean that particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject-matter Signature Not2 (2004) Verified 3 SCC 277.
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Page 6 of 9 Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jul-2024 16:53:40 of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action"
8. From the perusal of the abovementioned judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court.
9. Even though the Petitioner has been serving in Bokaro, his place of residence is within this State and hence, the maintainability of the Writ Petition cannot be ruled out merely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
10. Now, let us proceed to examine the merits of the case. According to Clause 8(f) of the Standing Orders for the Electric Sub-Station, the duty and responsibility of the Force at the duty post require them to monitor activities outside their immediate duty area and report any suspicious activities
11. The Petitioner's failure to comply with this instruction led to disciplinary action being taken against him for gross negligence, as per Rule 37 of the CISF Act, 2001. The Petitioner was subsequently given an opportunity to submit a representation against the charge memorandum. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of salary reduction on the Petitioner, which was upheld by the appellate authorities
12. The Apex Court had encountered a similar situation in the case of CISF and Others v. Santosh Kumar Pandey3 where it opined that "The writ court, when disciplinary action is challenged, is primarily concerned with Signature Not3 2022 Verified SCC OnLine SC 1734.
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Page 7 of 9 Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jul-2024 16:53:40 examination of the decision making process, which requires satisfaction that the competent authorities have held inquiry as per the prescribed procedure, and have duly applied their mind to the evidence and material placed on record, without extraneous matters being given undue consideration, and the relevant factors have been cogitated. The conclusions of fact, which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by the authorities, should not be interfered with merely because the court may have reached at a different conclusion..."
13. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined to correcting jurisdictional errors or addressing cases where the decision of the Court or Tribunal is so irrational that no reasonable Court could have reached the same conclusion. In this context, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Subrata Nath4 has held in para 22 as under:
"13.. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed Signature Not4 2022 Verified SCC OnLine 1617.
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Page 8 of 9 Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jul-2024 16:53:40 for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor."
14. While applying the established legal principles to the present case, it is inappropriate for this Court to scrutinize the merits of the Disciplinary Authority's findings. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the CISF Act, and the Petitioner was given an opportunity to present a representation
15. Upon reviewing the aforementioned facts, it is also evident that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither grossly disproportionate nor of the nature of punishment that would shock the conscience of this Court.
16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is rejected and disposed of.
17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th July, 2024/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Page 9 of 9 Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jul-2024 16:53:40