Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition filed by petitioner, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), seeking the quashing of a chargesheet, an enquiry report, and a disciplinary order for the alleged misbehavior and assault on a senior officer and making threats while under the influence of liquor, a single-judge bench comprising of Hiranmay Bhattacharyya,* J., affirmed the legality and procedural fairness of the disciplinary proceedings, emphasising the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The Court dismissed the writ petition as the court found no grounds for interfering with the disciplinary authority’s order.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), preferred a writ petition seeking the quashing of a chargesheet, an enquiry report dated 31-03-2008, and an order of the disciplinary authority dated 28-04-2008. The charges included alleged misconduct, specifically, misbehavior with a senior officer and making threats while under the influence of liquor. The petitioner responded to the charges, and an inquiry officer submitted a report concluding that the first charge was proven, and partially substantiating the second charge. The disciplinary authority subsequently issued an order on 28-04-2008, removing the petitioner from service immediately.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the Commandant, acting as the disciplinary authority, lacked the competence to initiate proceedings and impose the punishment. Additionally, the petitioner claimed a violation of natural justice principles during the disciplinary proceedings. Alleged violations of specific rules were also raised.
The counsel representing the Union of India, argued that the Commandant had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. She asserted that the inquiry followed principles of natural justice and that the disciplinary authority correctly relied on the inquiry findings. Due to the severity of the offense, she argued that the removal from service was justified.
Court’s Analysis
The Court referred to Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, highlighting that the High Court’s role is supervisory. The Supreme Court emphasised that the High Court should not reevaluate evidence but only examine whether certain conditions, such as jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and evidentiary support, are met.
The Court first addressed the jurisdictional question, citing Rule 32(1) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, and Schedule I and concluded that the Commandant was a competent disciplinary authority for the petitioner, a constable, and thus had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. The Court found no violation of Rule 19(1) of Rule 36 and held that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by a competent authority.
The Court then scrutinized the disciplinary proceedings and observed that the inquiry was conducted meticulously, with the Inquiry Officer considering evidence, statements, and documents. The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, and there was no violation of natural justice principles. The Court emphasised that, in judicial review, the High Court should not reassess evidence but only examine specific criteria.
Court’s Decision
Based on its analysis, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for interference with the disciplinary order. The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
[Bikash Sarkar v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 5636, order dated 22-12-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Shuvro Prakash Lahiri, Mr. Rajesh Naskar, Ms. Tithi Mazumder, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Rahul Sarkar, Ms. Dipika Sarkar, Counsel for the Union of India