Karnataka High Court
Sri C Puttappa S/O Late Channabasappa vs The Commandant on 16 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.23193 OF 2012 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SRI.C.PUTTAPPA
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
EX-HEAD CONSTABLE NO.88229591
CISF UNIT, SAC/PRL
AHMEDABAD
NOW UNDER ORDERS OF COMPULSORY
RETIREMENT
R/AT PILLENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
KADUR TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.O. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMANDANT
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
(MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS)
(THUMBA), TIRUVANANTHAPURAM
KERALA STATE
KERALA - 695022
2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
DOS HEAD QUARTERS
ANTHARIKSHA BHAVAN
-2-
NEW BEL ROAD
BENGALURU - 560064
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
CHENNAI PORT TRUST
SOUTH SECTOR
CHENNAI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.S.BHEEMAIAH, CGC FOR R.1 TO R.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS LEADING TO THE ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS
DATED 25.08.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 (2) ORDER DATED 19.10.2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY R.2 AND (3) DATED 13.01.2012
ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY R.3 AND AFTER PERUSAL OF ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER QUASHING THE SAID ORDERS WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.01.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by respondent No.1 in imposing -3- penalty of compulsory retirement and the same is confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under;
The petitioner joined service in 1988 as Constable (General Duty) at Central Industrial Security Force, Chennai. Petitioner claimed that he has worked more than 23 years with unblemished service. Petitioner, while working as a Head Constable (General Duty), CISF Unit, SAC, Headband, was deputed for temporary duty on 14.10.2010 to proceed to CISF, DOS Head Quarters, Bengaluru to handover service documents along with other papers related to W.P.No.4667/2010. After completion of work at CISF Unit, DIG/DOS Hqrs, Bengaluru, the petitioner reported at IG/CISF SS Hqrs, Chennai to get approval of Draft Counter Affidavit and thereafter, he was directed to report at NISA, Hyderabad to get approval of DCA by IG/NISA. After getting approval of DCA, he was further directed to proceed to IG/WS Hqrs, Mumbai. Petitioner, after reaching Mumbai, claims that he could not -4- enter CISF, Mumbai terminal on account of rain and he was waiting at nearby bus stop. However, he claimed that he fell asleep on account of fatigue as he was continuously travelling. As he woke up, he realized that his bag was missing.
3. The petitioner claimed that he immediately reported the above said incident to the concerned superiors and as per advise of the superiors, he contacted DIG/Airport, Mumbai to seek assistance to lodge FIR. Thereafter, the petitioner returned to his unit at Ahmadabad. Upon his arrival, the petitioner has narrated the incident to the Deputy Commandant. On 02.12.2010, the petitioner has lodged FIR in connection with missing documents. On 24.02.2011, respondent No.1 issued the Articles of charge against the petitioner seeking his explanation. The petitioner was charged with allegation that he has misplaced official documents while he was on duty and delayed the process of filing FIR. In the Articles of charge, it was also noted that petitioner has already been awarded 3 minor punishments earlier. -5-
4. The petitioner claimed that though he has offered satisfactory explanation to the charges, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report with a finding that petitioner is guilty of charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority issued show-cause notice based on the enquiry report and the petitioner offered his reply. Respondent No.1, ignoring reply given by the petitioner, imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the order of the penalty, the petitioner filed an appeal by challenging the same before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner availed remedy of appeal before the Inspector General, CISF by filing a revision petition. The Revisional Authority has rejected the Revision Petition vide order dated 13.01.2012.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and contend that the Enquiry Officer has selectively taken cognizance of the material placed on -6- record and the evidence, which was found to be in support of the petitioner, has been consciously ignored. Therefore, he would point out that the enquiry is tainted with bias. He would further vehemently argue and contend that documents based on which enquiry was initiated, the Author of the said document is not examined and therefore, the same has seriously prejudiced the defence of the petitioner herein. Therefore, he would point out that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority ought not to have taken cognizance of the documents on which the Enquiry Officer has proceeded to submit his report.
6. The second limb of arguments canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the following judgments;
-7-
1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LIMITED V. PRAKASH CHAND JAIN REPORTED IN AIR 1969 SC 983.
2. ANIL KUMAR V. PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 1985 SC 1121.
3. KULDEEP SINGH V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 1999 SC 677.
4. KASHINATH DIKSHITHA V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 1986 SC 2118
5. UNION OF INDIA V. S K KAPOOR REPORTED IN (2011)4 SCC 589.
6. DEV SINGH VS. PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2003 SCC (L & S) 1198.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, would point out that on account of incorrigible attitude of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing penalty. Therefore, no indulgence is warranted at the hands of this Court. He -8- would also point out that petitioner was awarded three minor punishments for various misconduct and indiscipline activities. Referring to the materials on record, he would point out that petitioner has not disputed that vital documents were lost on account of gross negligence. Therefore, he would contend that Disciplinary Authority having examined enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and bearing in mind the gravity of loss of the official documents due to careless attitude and negligence on the part of the petitioner, the punishment awarded to the petitioner does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. He would also point that the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have declined to interfere with the order of punishment for want of counter materials at the instance of the petitioner herein during enquiry proceedings.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
-9-
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the materials on record. On examining Enquiry Report and the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, there is no dispute that the petitioner was entrusted the duty of handing over documents at IG/WS Hqrs, Mumbai. During the course of journey to Mumbai, the petitioner lost official documents, which lead to initiation of enquiry against the petitioner. Though there are sufficient materials to sustain the order of Enquiry Officer holding that the petitioner is guilty of loss of vital documents, however, this Court would find that punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is found to be totally disproportionate. Even if the charges are held to be proved, it is crucial to assert that severity of dismissal as a punishment for mere loss of some documents, without any ulterior motive, is obviously disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The foundational principle of employment law underscores the necessity for proportionality in meting out disciplinary actions, ensuring that the punishment aligns with the gravity of the offense committed. -10-
10. Firstly, it is imperative to acknowledge that the petitioner has admitted to falling asleep on a bus stop, resulting in inadvertent loss of documents. Human error is an inherent aspect of any professional setting, and therefore, a compassionate consideration of such instances is essential in maintaining a fair and just workplace. Furthermore, the principle of progressive discipline should be invoked, emphasizing the need for proportionate punishment. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments has held that severe punishment should be a last resort, reserved for instances of grave misconduct and not for an isolated incident of loss of documents. In the present case on hand, the documents were lost by the petitioner, which can be attributed to fatigue or human error. It is borne out from the records that the petitioner was found to be travelling all the way from Ahmadabad to Bengaluru and from Bengaluru to Chennai and from Chennai to Hyderabad and thereafter, from Hyderabad to Mumbai. Therefore, on account of continuous journey, it was quite natural for the petitioner to have suffered fatigue.
-11-
11. If these significant details are looked into, then this Court is of the view that punishing petitioner for a single incident of loss of documents, without a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances and without considering less severe alternatives, has to be indeed considered as disproportionate and unjust punishment.
12. The doctrine of proportionality constitutes another vital aspect of judicial evaluation. The Court assess whether severity of the punishment corresponds to the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The main grievance against the petitioner is that he has not only lost some official documents but there was some laxness on the part of the petitioner in not immediately registering the FIR. The delay in lodging FIR may be on account of several factors and circumstances. There is no tangible evidence to indicate that petitioner did not react swiftly. Interestingly, department has not substantiated as to what are those vital documents that were lost by the petitioner, which would only warrant harsh punishment of -12- "compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefits". No materials are placed on record during the course of enquiry to substantiate that these documents were originals and the said documents could not be rebuilt. Though it is not in dispute that petitioner on account of fatigue was not able to take care of the official documents, however, the petitioner is compelled to face departmental enquiry for minor offence. Therefore, this Court is more than satisfied that the disciplinary action in the present facts and circumstances lacks due diligence and therefore, this Court is bound to intervene with the penalty imposed by the Authority. Employment decisions including dismissals are subject to constitutional scrutiny and the Courts often ensure that these decisions are complied with fundamental rights and principles. If a dismissal or penalty of compulsory retirement, such as in the case of a minor error, contradicts societal expectations of fairness and justice and therefore, this Court is more than satisfied that the punishment imposed is found to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner. Though allegations stand proved, -13- this Court is not inclined to accept the order of penalty awarded by the Authority.
13. Therefore, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider maximum punishment awarded in the present case on hand having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. While upholding the findings and misconduct against the petitioner, respondent No.1 is hereby directed to reconsider and modify the punishment bearing in mind the observations made by this Court as stated supra.
14. In view of the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The orders passed by
respondent Nos.1 to 3 vide Annexures-
F, H and K respectively are hereby
quashed.
-14-
(iii) The matter is remitted back to
respondent No.1 to re-consider the
punishment imposed on the petitioner
strictly adhering to the observations
made by this Court in the course of the
order.
(iv) This exercise shall be
completed within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM