Gujarat High Court
P. Janardhana Rao vs Commandant Cisf Unit Ongc on 29 August, 2023
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/874/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 874 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3133 of 2020
==========================================================
P. JANARDHANA RAO
Versus
COMMANDANT CISF UNIT ONGC
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 29/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. P. C. Chaudhari for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Harsheel Shukla for the respondent.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by appellant-the petitioner calling in question the order dated 4.4.2022 passed by learned single Judge, whereby the Special Civil Application filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.
3. The petitioner, who was head constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was levelled with the charges of misconduct. The first charge was that he stabbed his junior member, when they both stayed in barrack No.4 of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Unit Lane, Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:51:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/874/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023 undefined Ankleshwar. The petitioner also threatened the junior colleague to result into filling of the First Information Report against the petitioner, it was stated. The second charge was that the petitioner was found in drunken condition having consumed the alcohol. It was mentioned that the petitioner was earlier awarded two major and four minor punishments for misconducts, which included three incidents of committing the act of assault in drunken condition. The petitioner did not show any improvement in his habits and again indulged into similar acts.
3.1 After departmental inquiry conducted against the appellant petitioner, the Commandant, CISF-respondent No.1 herein. passed order of dismissal dated 30.4.2016. The appellant preferred appeal before the respondent No.2-Deputy Inspector General of CISF, which was dismissed on 30.06.2016. Thereafter, revision application was filed under the Rules before the Respondent No.3-Inspector General of CISF. The Revision application came to be dismissed on 24.11.2016. There was yet another remedy which the appellant resorted to, by filling the mercy petition before the highest authority-Director General, which mercy petition also came to be rejected on 15.5.2018.
3.2 The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders dated 30.4.2016, 30.6.2016, 24.11.2016 and 5.5.2018 respectively. Learned single Judge dismissed the petition noticing that the dismissal was affirmed in Appeal as well as in Revision. Learned single Judge observed that submissions were made by the petitioner only on the ground of proportionality of punishment. On that score also learned single Judge did not thought it fit to grant relief to the petitioner and Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:51:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/874/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023 undefined dismissed the petition.
3.3 In course of submission, learned advocate for the authorities pointed out that the incident was not solitary, but past record of the appellant was also blamished, inasmuch as, as many as six incidents had occurred of the kind, of which three were of the same kind of misconduct. In the inquiry proceedings, thirteen witnesses were examined by the authorities and several documents including orders of punishment passed against the petitioner in past were placed on record at Exh. 1 to 6. The facts thus indicated that the repeated misconducts were committed by the appellant. The stabbing the co-employee was on his chest with a knife in drunken condition.
4. Learned single Judge has extracted findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, which deserves to be noted, "From the above statement and documentary evidence produced by PW- 13, it is clearly evident that HC/GD P. Janardana Roa, Charged Official was awarded with 2 Major and 4 Minor punishments by the different disciplinary authorities. Out of which in three cases the charged official was punished due to scuffle/assault in drunken condition. Being the member of the disciplined force, scuffle/assault in drunken conditions is the gross misconduct, however, the disciplinary authorities took lenient view against the charged official with the hope that he will improve his conduct. But the Charged Official failed to reform/improve his conduct and committed again and again the same act of gross misconduct and grave act of indiscipline. Inspite of giving various opportunities to the Charged Official, but he did not improve his conduct which established that the Charged Official is a habitual offender and do not bother about the discipline of the force which adversely affects on the discipline of other force personnel as well as the image of the force."
Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:51:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/874/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023 undefined
5. Learned single Judge was right in his reasoning that the order of dismissal was confirmed in appeal and revision and when the appellant was an armed force personnel entrusted with the task of guarding vital and sensitive installations, as a member of the members of the disciplined force like armed police, he was expected to display exemplary disciplined behaviour in discharge of duties. In this case, the punishment of dismissal was imposed also keeping in view the past similar misconducts.
5.1 The orders are passed by the authorities in Appeal, Revision and Mercy Petition concurrently rejecting the case of the petitioner, after considering the merits and justification of original order of dismissal passed against the petitioner. It needs to be observed that inquiry officer held the charges against the appellant to be proved. The charges were serious as noticed above. The petitioner was found guilty of stabbing his junior colleague and behaving in drunken conditions 5.2 The submission was also that the petitioner had put in long 27 years of services, therefore punishment of dismissal was harsh and the punishment of lesser degree was required to be imposed. In the facts and circumstances of the case as highlighted hereinabove, the court does not find any merit in this submission, as the appellant was a member of the disciplined force not expected to behave in the manner unbecoming.
5.3 In any view, the scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty is extremely limited which is in the domain of disciplinary authority. In the instant case, penalty imposed could be said to be just and legal.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:51:34 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/874/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023 undefined
6. Neither on the ground of merit nor on the ground of proportionality of punishment, any case is made out. Looking to the gravity of misconduct and the attendant circumstances, learned single Judge was eminently justified in upholding the penalty of dismissal.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal requires to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (D. M. DESAI,J) C.M. JOSHI Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 02:51:34 IST 2023