Allahabad High Court
Uma Shankar Tripathi vs Union Of India Thru Prin.Secy.Ministry ... on 27 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:66109
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 7580 of 2014
Uma Shankar Tripathi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India Thru Prin.Secy.Ministry Of Home N.Delhi And Ors
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
N.K.Pandey, Alok Kumar Pandey, Vinod Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.S.G., Anand Dwivedi, Hemant Kumar Pandey, Meenakshi Singh Parihar
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Union of India..
2. By means of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of an order dated 03.08.1999 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (for short "CISF") dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 03.08.1999. An appeal submitted by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by means of an order dated 15.03.2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF and the petitioner has challenged the validity of the appellate order also.
3. Earlier, the petitioner had assailed the validity of the aforesaid orders by filing Writ Petition No. 1949 (S/S) of 2000, which was allowed by means of a judgement and order dated 11.04.2007 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the dismissal order and the appellate order were quashed and the petitioner was restored in service with all benefits, except the arrears of salary. However, the said order was set aside by means of a judgement and order dated 10.03.2014 passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 690 of 2007 on the ground that the learned Single Judge has referred to a Circular Dated 19.05.2000 issued by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF whereas the petitioner was removed from service on 03.08.1999, i.e, prior to issuance of the circular and the circular has no retrospective operation. Further, the circular provides that Sector Inspector General of Circular may scrutinize the matter which had been disposed of earlier, in which, the punishment imposed appears to be excessive. Accordingly, the Special Appeal was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to prefer a revision before the Competent Authority (Inspector General), who will consider the petitioner's case in light of provisions contained in the circular dated 19.05.2000.
4. The Inspector General has rejected the petitioner's representation by means of an order dated 28.04.2014 and the petitioner has challenged the validity of that order also through this petition.
5. The allegation against the petitioner was that a shot had accidentally been fired from the service weapon of the petitioner while he was on duty. However, no loss or harm was occasioned to any person due to the shot fired accidentally.
6. The charge against the petitioner was that the accidental firing of a shot indicates negligence in performance of the duty and handling the weapon. The circular dated 19.05.2000, although issued subsequent to passing of the punishment order, clearly contains a stipulation for scrutiny of older matters which had already been decided and, therefore, cannot be said this Circular is not relevant for adjudicating upon the legality and validity of the punishment order. This circular specifically provides that the person guilty of firing shot accidentally should be placed under suspension, if death/injury has been caused to any person. Departmental inquiry should be initiated against the person, who has fired shot accidentally. In case death/ harm has been caused due to a shot fired accidentally, final punishment of dismissal from service can be granted keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In other cases, where death/harm is not caused, some redressive punishment may be grant keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The circular clarifies that personal bias or discrimination has no place in such matters.
7. In the present case, the charge itself says that the shot was fired accidentally and not deliberately. No death or harm has been caused by the shot fired accidentally. When the act/complained is an accident and not a deliberate act and no harm or loss has been occasioned to any person due to the accidental act, the circular does not contemplate any major punishment.
8. Rule 31 of the Central Industrial Security Force, 1969, provides as follows:-
"Rule 31 - Nature of penalties The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a member of the Force, namely:-- (a) dismissal; (b) removal; (c) compulsory retirement; (d) reduction to a lower class or trade or rank or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay; (e) withholding of increment or promotion; (f) removal from any office of distinction or deprivation of special emolument; (g) fine to any amount not exceeding 7 days' pay; (h) censure.
Explanation.--The following shall not amount to penalty within the meaning of this rule, namely--
(i) withholding of increment of a member of the Force for failure to pass a departmental examination in accordance with the rules or orders governing the class or grade or rank or post or the terms of his appointment; (ii) stoppage of a member of the Force at the efficiency bar in a time-scale on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar;
(iii) non-promotion, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity of a member of the Force after consideration of his case to a class, grade, rank or post for promotion to which he is eligible; (iv) reversion to a lower class, grade, rank or post of a member of the Force officiating in a higher class, grade, rank or post on the ground that he is considered after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher class, grade, rank or post on administrative ground unconnected with his conduct;
(v) reversion to his permanent service, grade or post of a member, Force appointed to the Force on probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing probation;
(vi) replacement of the services of a member of the Force whose services have been borrowed from a State Government or an authority under the control of a State Government at the disposal of the authority which had lent his services;
(vii) compulsory retirement of a member of the Force in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement;
(viii) termination of service,--
(a) of a member of the Force appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing probation; or (b) of a member of the force employed under an agreement in accordance with the terms of such agreement;
(c) of a member of the Force appointed in a temporary capacity or for a specified period on one month's notice or on tender of pay of one month in lieu of notice or on the expiry of the said period;
(ix) treatment of absence from duty as dies non ordered by a competent authority under rule 49A."
9. Rule 34 contains the procedure for imposing major penalties and Rule 35 contains the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Although, the terms major penalties and minor penalties are not defined in CISF Rules 1969, Rule 34 (1) of mentions that no order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 31 shall be placed except after an inquiry held in the manner provided in Rule 34. Rule 35(1) provides that the penalties specified in clauses (e) to (h) of Rule 31 shall be passed after following the procedure laid down in Rule 35 for imposing minor penalty. From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules, it appears that the punishments specified in clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 31 are major punishments. The punishment of compulsory retirement which is mentioned in Rule 31 (c) is, therefore, a major penalty.
10. Subsequently, CISF Rules, 2001 have come into being which have repealed the CISF Rules 1969. Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 2001 provides that compulsory retirement shall be a major penalty.
11. The revisional authority has held that Head Constable C.B.S. Yadav was also responsible for accidental firing to some extent as he had not removed the magazine before handing over the weapon to the petitioner and he has also been punished for the misconduct/negligence committed by him but the misconduct/negligence on the part of the petitioner was much graver as he had pressed the trigger without following the procedure.
12. The revisional authority has rejected the petitioner's plea that some other persons, who had also been held responsible for accidental firing, were awarded only minor punishment whereas the petitioner has been awarded a major punishment on the ground that the petitioner cannot compare his case with that of the others, as the nature and circumstance of each case is different and the gravity of misconduct also differs from case to case considering the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the revisional authority has not referred to the facts and circumstances of any other case in which minor punishment was awarded for accidental firing, so as to show that the facts of those cases were different from the facts of the petitioner's case. 13. The revisional authority further held that the circular dated 19.05.2000 does not debar the authorities from awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement and it only stipulates that in case of death/injury due to accidental firing, the penalty of dismissal should be award and in other cases, a deterrent punishment should be imposed. The revisional authority held that earlier the petitioner had been dismissed from service but the appellate authority has reduced the punishment to compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity and there is no illegality in it.
14. The revisional authority has not held that the Circular dated 19.05.2000 does not apply to the present case and the revisional authority itself has relied upon the provisions of the said circular. The circular specifically provides that punishment of dismissal will be granted only where death/injury is caused due to accidental firing, which is not the case here. The circular further provides that in other matters where death or injury is not caused, some redressive punishment should be given keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. The petitioner has specifically contended that in numerous other matters of accidental firing, minor punishments had been imposed. This plea has been rejected merely on the ground that punishments are awarded keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case, but the revisional authority has not mentioned the difference in facts and circumstances of those cases where minor punishments were imposed in case of accidental firing and has not mentioned as to how the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case are different so as to justify imposition of a major when penalty against him, when the circular specifically states that where death or injury is not caused, some redressive punishment should be imposed.
16. The aforesaid facts indicate that the petitioner has been treated with discrimination while awarding him a major penalty of compulsory retirement whereas the other similarly situated persons have been awarded minor punishments and the Circular dated 19.05.2000 contains a specific stipulation that there is no place of personal bias or favoritism in such matters.
17. The revisional authority has further committed a patent illegality in holding that the circular does not debar from imposing a major penalty in cases of accidental firing when the circular specifically states that some redressive punishment should be granted in cases of accidental firing where no death or injury has caused.
18. Major penalty of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be 'some redressive punishment' which appears to be inclusive of minor penalties and not major penalties.
19. In view of forgoing discussion I am of the view that the impugned orders dated 03.08.1999 passed by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), 15.03.2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF and 28.04.2014 passed by the Inspector General, are unsustainable in law and are liable to be quashed.
20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 03.08.1999 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), the order that 15.03.2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF and the order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the Inspector General are hereby quashed. The petitioner is reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. However, the petitioner will be entitled to merely 50% of the back wages payable to him.
21. The authority shall be at liberty to pass a fresh punishment order against the petitioner but that should be limited to some minor punishment and not a major punishment.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) October 27, 2025 Preeti